A next-gen RTS/RTT Concept?

Here are my (very rough) ideas…

Summary

An RTS game which emphasizes *true* tactical and strategic play. A push towards high level strategic planning and intervention in key scenarios (battles, economic problems etc) rather than micromanaging every aspect of the game.

Proposed features:

• Random terrain generator (or placement?).
• Resources linked ‘directly’ to expansion of territory and land ‘value’ (variable).
• Technology-trees for research and upgrades.
• Modular, customisable in-game unit design.
• Unit automation for monotonous tasks.
• Intuitive and streamlined GUI with contextual menus, drag n’ drop.
• Single-resource system (split into research/building - ratios).
• Two main aspects; research/tech (or ‘evolution’?) and actual building.
• Regional influence and control organised via localised ‘base’ structures.
• Advanced group management and formations.
• Advanced order and command management with ‘history panel’ (d n’ d).
• Base structures ‘linked’ to create realistic warfare ’supply lines’.
• Deep tactical and creativity-rewarding gameplay.
• Gigantic scale.
• Thousands of units and epic battles.
• Powerful physics system with emergent, dynamic gameplay.
• Probabilistic mechanics create slight unpredictability and surprises.
• Strategic zoom!
• A big juicy Belgian waffle with maple syrup.

Unit and Group Behaviour

Options available, some general problems, and some possible solutions.

1. Individual units always decide what/when/how to engage an enemy.
2. Set areas of engagement (see “draw tool” idea) within which the individual (or group) decides.
3. As above, can be inverted (’do NOT attack here’ , ‘avoid this area’ etc).
4. Very strict player control (like most RTS).
5. Units decide based on local/group decisions and local factors, then create ‘alerts’ for the player which are then accepted or discarded. Basically a “do we engage now, sir?” (yes, no, auto).
6. Units decide (as #1) but based heavily on LOS/radar info etc, very regional.
7. Pre-set group behaviours (local or global “aggression” levels for example, perhaps set by regional base structures).
8. Individual units influenced by local (’base’) settings (as above) but also by ‘leader’ units or sub-commanders (or the units with most veterancy etc?).
9. As #1 but all units influenced mostly by ‘global’ settings (ie. An aggression/passive slider). Even further, like Space Empires diplomacy settings.

---

Notes:Order/Command creation and selection?This could be an editor in itself, part of the UI - with advanced filters, like; .all units within X group with X module + X veterancy’ or ‘units in group X or group Y without X module’. It could have drag n’ drop, so criteria dragged onto a new group copies the same selection criteria and selects those same filters for you. Imagine a templates system (like Supcom) but for order management… Groups linked to ‘order-groups’, when orders are edited in the UI, it automatically updates the group behaviour/AI/selection criteria etc. Stan’s ideas here were interesting.Pro’s - extremely powerful unit selection (like search filters in gmail or ‘dynamic playlists’ in Winamp) for orders/commands/selection etc. Highly sophisticated, infinite strategic considerations.Cons - Difficult to maker this work in the UI, maybe too complex, not enough CPU resources etc (Stan?)? What if complex orders were lost or confused etc? Potentially too much work/micro for the player?Overall, I still prefer more general macro-control with [micro] intervention only necessary at certain times (during battle, or a critical moment). So we need to make the game so that it more efficient to let the AI run more mundane tasks, and have it run them well. The player can make creative strategic decisions on top of that.

---

Units

Units in this RTS concept are not the units we are used to seeing in traditional RTS. They cannot afford to be if we want to get away from orthodox micro-intensive RTS gameplay.

• Each unit is basically an ‘energy cell’. They each have a ‘nucleus’ which contains this core energy. Modules are built on top of this main cell (literally or figuratively speaking).
• Units auto-repair and auto-’recharge’ etc - but very slowly. Everything they do is tied to their core energy nucleus. If the energy is depleted things like energy weapons cannot function, or if they are almost depleted, then they function at lower rates (logaritmic perhaps - less power, just like a real battery might).
• Once the main cell, or nucleus, is ‘punctured’ (hit) the unit is effectively ‘dead’ (energy explodes or leaks or something.)
• Once dead, units can be reclaimed BUT…
• …they will very gradually dissolve into the ground over time, adding value to the ground itself (ie: for building bases on and extracting the resources). The reason for this is path finding (too many dead units = complete slowdown) and physics issues (like TA with weapons etc). Essentially, you have unit ‘graveyards’ which can decompose to avoid too much CPU stress. Cool idea, huh?! Getting to them before they ‘decompose’ would be more valuable, but some value is transferred into the terrain itself and not lost forever.
• Units interact with other units and automate decisions (should we attack or retreat?). They have built in AI which thinks using basic local interactions, like social insects. Influenced further by their local ‘base’ structures or veteran units.
• Base structures set regional influence (variable in the *area* of influence maybe?) such as aggression levels or available upgrades, way-points, specific stored commands etc etc. This can be played with.
• Units can be customised using a modular system linked to a complex tech-tree.
• The modules themselves define unit size, speed etc. So, one can add lots of armour, but this slows the units down (armour = heavy = slow) we’d need a clever modular physics system. (Stan?)
• Units make decisions using a probabilistic AI, so an element of surprise and randomness is in their behaviour. However, when aggregated over hundreds/thousands/groups of units, each interacting with each other and exchanging information, a more global emergent order arises, which the player can influence and control. Like for example in TA, microing a Flash tank at the beginning is important but but less and less so over time when the battle sizes and unit numbers increase and the macro management is more important.
• Veterancy - important and works on a kind of logarithmic scale. Veteran units have more influence over others. Tied to ‘number of kills’ (of course), player influence (set as commander unit adds some auto-veterancy perhaps?) and *type* of kills (more like a damage based system, where units get more veterancy if doing more damage to units, more so to units with higher veterancy themselves, etc).
• Perhaps units could physically ‘grow’ with veterancy (great visual concept and cool factor). Modules could ‘grow’ accordingly (bigger laser etc) along with any associated costs (laser consumes energy etc).

Notes:

I would like to keep the units themselves (in terms of form, animation and graphics etc) very simplistic. The modular system, whereby players can customise units will be tricky to implement (GUI and usability nightmare) if the module system is not quick, simple and intuitive. Also I want the units at multiple levels to be clear and crisp and indicate to the player VISUALLY what state they are in, what modules the contain etc.

Also a major fun factor is the sheer size and visual madness of battles, and it is unlikely the player will be zooming in to low levels to inspect turret rotation etc, or probably then only to view some particular interesting developments and gain intel rather than to actually micro-manage etc. So the individual units don’t have to look so pretty (as in Supcom), I prefer graphical clarity. Good for UI, colourful and crisp - great when moving/fighting in large numbers and info is needed. Bases and structures might be much larger, units are generally controlled as tiny sized dots whereas base units (where most of the orders, modules etc are created) are more like ancient fortresses, castles, even ‘village hives’ of activity.

Imagine attacking a huge fortress base, with giant laser turrets and walls surrounding it and hundreds of guard units posted in or around them.

Notes continued….

I have various ideas about how the units look and behave but much needs to be discussed in this area. I have sketches of units and how modules might be attached in terms of UI and play animation. I like the idea of very simplistic looking units, circular and almost 2d-looking, with the ‘nucleus’ dead-centre. This is to do with the fact that the units themselves can take actual damage, they are destructable, the modules, cell etc is actually part of the physics system. NOT like in TA/Supcom where there is just X damage points and a preset animation as the damage increases (smoke, explosion etc).

Unit behaviour and physics:

• A weapons hit would hit a specific AREA of the unit (i.e. physics like size etc actually affect it in battle in a meaningful way) which is unlike TA, Supcom etc where a unit only sort of ‘takes damage’ very generally.
• Circular makes sense because it creates balance, no ’sticking-out-bits’!
• Modules attach in various logical ways which play around with the physics. Example; armour module might add 1mm of circumference to the unit cell (like an extra layer of skin). Shields might encircle the unit, but have to recharge from the units’ main energy cell (nucleus) accordingly. Turrets etc would need to be rethought.
• Adding this physics damage feature would create HUGE strategic depth. For example, a group attack from ‘north to south’ would hit the majority of enemy units from a certain direction/angle and might create a few mm’s of damage to most units’ north face. The damage is only slowly repaired. With groups or very large units, you could choose to target or attack from a certain place or in a certain direction to maximise damage.
  • • Note; this is partly why in ‘Groups’ (see drawings etc) I have an option for units to face in certain directions to a) prepare for an attack from XYZ and b) make sure the least vulnerable units/damaged units/damaged side of the group/etc is not facing the enemy.
    • This is also why I want to keep the shape and graphics/animations of the units fairly simplistic, but fun and colourful.

Grouping abilities?

• I would like to bridge the divide between management of thousands of units, with being able to influence battle scenarios in a fun and simple way. I believe for this we would need to find a mechanism within unit Groups rather than individual control etc.
• I think that grouped units should have an extra feature, which is the ability to use individual unit modules to create a single, larger ‘group-module’. For example; groups with many ’shield’ module components can scale up into one, larger shield, perhaps drawing from the energy cells of all units within that group. It could be that the module type that is the majority within a group is the only one that can be used, or that all modules types can be scaled up within a group (although not simultaneously).
• Group modules would combine the total energy/abilities of all the smaller ones.
• Needs to be very visual and accessible to the player, quick to activate and employ.
• Reference: http://www.kongregate.com/games/dz2001/momentum-missile-mayhem
  If you look at how the pull-release mechanism works here this is the thing I am thinking of for the group weapons-mechanism. So a player can charge and release the group-laser/rtillery as though the group were ‘one unit’ (kind of like the Commander in T.A having a unique D-Gun ability which needs direct player control).

Draw Tool concept

Problem: Advanced command management. For example, how do we quickly tell units to stick to certain paths, or avoid area, keeping their current orders or blending them? How do we do this visually, avoiding pushing micromanagement into the UI?

The current way-point, drag-n-drop, shift-click type system is great, but not quite enough for the sheer size of this game.

Solution: Draw tool (a la Photoshop / Flash - recommend you try these!)

• Line, free-draw (create complex paths) circle, square, ellipse, rectangle, triangle etc.
• Once a shape is made on screen, you can right click and set:
  • • Area for avoidance
    • Area for concentration (attack here)
    • Area to drag n’ drop in orders? (Maybe once certain units enter this area, they are influenced a certain way, like aggression, return-fire, hold ground etc)
    • Can be attached to standard orders or way-points, drag n’ dropped around.
• Lines drawn can be
  • • Do not pass this point!
    • Go around here
    • Stick to this path
    • Patrol here
    • Add this line to way-points
    • Connected to orders, units, groups etc (again, simple drag n’ drop etc)
• Used as general markers like in TA-Demo Recorder
  • • To communicate with others (”stay away, enemies!” or “allies, attack here!”)
• Merged into group shapes (see section on ‘Group Behaviour’ and drawings)
• Construction paths (like TADR) for complex, or curved lines - WALLS.

‘Free-draw’ tool:

• Works with a (Photoshop-esq) feather system, or like in Flash CS3 (where the line is sort of smoothed out and ‘averaged’ to make up for shaky mouse or hands, slight mistakes or hard angles etc).
• Potential as a back up path-finding workaround for lots of units? Stan??!!
• As with the shape/area tool can be converted to/from orders, groups, way-points, etc.

Paint-Brush tool?!

Brainstorm Idea: To be able, during battles, to specify general areas to target, rather than just single units. Useful for artillery etc, to kind of ’spray’ an area…

Perhaps the brush could be ’sticky’, so you hover over an enemy group, brushing the units which glow to show you they have been ‘brushed’ for targeting etc?

Perhaps keep just the area/shape tool and convert to attack area? Then if enemy units move away one can just de-activate or drag the area along?

Base Units (structures)

Base units are the chessboard and centerpiece of the gameplay. They are where plans are made and implemented, economy is balanced and regulated, they actually become part of the UI itself (clever, huh?!) and act as a bridge between the tech-trees and actual ground based action, units, etc.

• Generic. To save time, when you want a new base unit, you simply select the icon and slap it down in a given area.
• They generate resources from their surroundings immediately, income depends on value of the land.
• They grow (a clever way to automate energy storage I think) and gain veterancy etc lie units.
• They can be modified in numerous ways, like units, using modules and orders etc.
• They can be physically linked to other base units. IMPORTANT. Why?
  • • Because this simulates warfare supply lines, which almost no other RTS does in my opinion. Resources are exchanged between bases to improve efficiency, also as a backup in case of attack.
• Modules can be attached in two ways.
  • • To the base itself (module simply scales to fit, but more expensive etc)
    • As supply modules for units to pick-up/upgrade etc.
• Store orders and commands which exact regional influence and control.
• When built, a connector is automatically attached to the nearest base, the further away the more expensive (around obstacles, through water etc more so). You do not have to choose to connect it to another, but it does improve efficiency (= build speed, regeneration capability etc - basically like an electricity or broadband connection!) Connector will find the best path to the nearest base, but this can be snap-dragged through a different path or to another base. You can connect a base to multiple bases.
• Auto-repairs itself, and/or units within its area
• Auto-upgrades itself, units within its area.
• Can retrofit units (ie tell units to “replace lasers with artillery” etc)
• Units are attracted to their nearest base for repair, safety etc (unless under strict group or direct player control etc)
• Bases will auto-build units. IMPORTANT. This is a key feature. It seems far fetched, but I think the base should auto-build ‘generic’ units immediately. The units then harvest local resources and return to base. The player can change this but it is set by default (think how quickly one can expand the empire.) This means of course the bases start with X amount of energy to start building with (shown in the cost when placed). Perhaps the generic unit ‘template’ could be modified, so the generic ‘fresh’ unit gets module add-ons such as a laser, shield etc.
• Bases can become mass-production facilities, or gigantic well armed fortresses, or repair centres, depending on the need. They are the centre of your strategic planning.

IMPORTANT: The supply line concept is an integral and necessary part of the game. As a player expands, so his resources increase and structures laid down etc. However, adding the ability to connect base-nodes adds huge strategic depth to the game. For example, a player who has fewer resources could concentrate on cutting supply lines by attacking the vulnerable connectors (think of them as oil pipelines!) and shutting down an entire section of the players empire.

* This would work great before an attack on the base, to cut its power or create a resource blockade to the main empire. It creates a kind of balance: the larger an empire becomes, the harder it is to defend.

Also, one can create a sudden move to a remote part of the map and use the ‘pipelines’ to feed energy from the main empire into a new region, but obviously this would be expensive (laying all those pipelines!!) and risky (will the pipes/connectors get finished? Can I defend them? Etc).

* The connectors should be quick to build, and hard to find. Engineers-units which are built from the base structure would begin work on the connectors, as would idle engineers at the other end, perhaps?

Quick note: I suppose a base structure would need a basic engineering module enabled by default which could later be removed, upgraded etc?

It would be nice to have some control over the shape or style of these base structures. Would making wall attachments need an engineering module? Lots of minor details to think about.

Order structure concept

• Can place and queue orders by shift-click as in TA/Supcom
• Orders can be drag/dropped, edited on the fly, moved around as in Supcom.
• Could the commands be non-linear/non-sequential? Idle units could simply undertake orders based on proximity, feasibility etc based upon their own AI/local rules? One could double-click an order node to add importance/urgency to it, like a kind of weighting system perhaps. In fact, the player could keep clicking and it adds more urgency to that particular order (displayed visually as colours or numbers?)

Groups

See drawings. Notes to be added soon.

Tech-tree

Notes to be added soon.

Resource System

• Single resource. Converted to actual building of units and structures, or into the tech-tree/research/upgrades thingy.
• ??????
• ??????

Tech-tree

• Modular, linked to base structures via engineering module.
• Some tech-tree choices ‘grey out’ others. This is for the following reasons:
  • • To create balance between players
    • To add strategic choice
    • To create an empire ‘on-the-fly’ (ie. There are no factions in this game, your tech-tree and play style IS your faction!).
• Tech/upgrades etc available globally or restrict to local bases or connected nodes/bases?

Physics

Notes to be added soon.

Graphics and UI layout etc

• Massively contextual! (menus hidden except when needed!)
• Minimalistic!
• Powerful and simplistic, elegant an intuitive. The Google-iPod of RTS UI.
• A critical thing to do right. For me, half the game is actually shaped around getting the GUI and commands system working properly. It is the only way to deal with micromanagement and other major RTS issues.
• I would like the actual game to merge into the UI. This is quite a futuristic concept but I think it can be done. For example, as the units grow/evolve they literally show you, visually what they’re doing and the same for bases, but more so. I’d like to blend modules through the unit graphics to the UI in a new way.
• Bright and colourful, almost ‘psychedelic’ in appearance (see Homeworld 2 screen shot for reference)
• Accessible and fun fun FUN.