|
I would like to be able to economically destroy my enemy, such as Iran is getting raped in the ass and face by sanctions. SimBank, anyone?
Combine this with political factors, deciding what economy your state will have, whether or not you were appointed or elected or fought for power. Something like the nationstates site. There's also influence, which could be taken from the Civ series.
Then you have the actual warfare. It should be simple, yet complex. No command centers or bunkers, as those are built elsewhere. (unless your attacked there, then it would serve as a map.) Just a battlefield that's generated from the main map. You would have reinforcements come in and would have to protect the transports, though the protection can happen on/off the battle map.
Simcity + Civ series + Total War battles = profit!
|
Basically Frozen Synapse's depth of commands and play-functionality merged with X-COM.
Dear God please ;_;
|
On November 02 2012 14:52 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 14:32 red4ce wrote:
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game. That's interesting that you say you haven't really enjoyed any other RTS's other then Rome. This is more curiousity then anything but did you ever play company of heroes or anything to that effect? I also heavily disagree with you that the RTS genre is dead, there are plenty being made still today that are quiet popular, sc2 expansion, Company of heroes 2, new total war game that I forget the name of, civilization x number they are on now, etc.
I tried the CoH single player briefly but it did not interest me enough to buy the game. This may sound silly to you but I'm simply sick of WW2 games and will not get another one for a long time. If they made a game in a sci-fi setting with CoH mechanics I'd be willing to check it out. I'm ready for a thousand more battles against orcs or space aliens but if I ever have to storm Normandy again for the 162nd time...
As far as RTS being 'dead' what I meant was what probe1 said in his post. Whereas action/adventure/shooters/rpgs are still innovating, almost all of the new RTS games are simply a pretty skin and a few twists pasted over 15 year old gameplay. This isn't inherently a bad thing and I'm sure the loyal fans are pleased, but I think I can safely say that I won't enjoy <insert game here> 3 since I didn't insert <insert game here> 2.
|
On November 02 2012 15:55 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 14:52 blade55555 wrote:On November 02 2012 14:32 red4ce wrote:
I tried really hard to think of what my dream RTS would be but all the things I thought of basically kept going back to Brood War, with a smattering of SC2 elements mixed in. There's a reason the RTS genre is dead. Starcraft came out with the perfect mixture of strategy, action, depth and accessibility. That's not to say there can't be improvements but these would be building upon Starcraft's fundamental base rather than creating something new. There's nothing left to innovate because Blizzard already figured out the formula 14 years ago and everything else feels gimmicky by comparison.
The only non-Blizzard RTS I have genuinely enjoyed was the Total War series. If you stuck a gun to my head and told me to think of something besides Starcraft, it would be a Total War game. My favorite in the series was Rome: Total War so think that, but with smarter AI, a more transparent morale system, and the realism toned down a bit so that units respond to commands more directly. Also I would like to see the scope of the game expanded beyond Europe and include all the great civilizations and empires of old (i.e. Chinese dynasties, Islamic Caliphates, etc). Don't want too much emphasis on empire building like in the Civilization games though, this game should still be primarily a war game. That's interesting that you say you haven't really enjoyed any other RTS's other then Rome. This is more curiousity then anything but did you ever play company of heroes or anything to that effect? I also heavily disagree with you that the RTS genre is dead, there are plenty being made still today that are quiet popular, sc2 expansion, Company of heroes 2, new total war game that I forget the name of, civilization x number they are on now, etc. If they made a game in a sci-fi setting with CoH mechanics I'd be willing to check it out.
I've got some news for you...
http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/home
|
I always thought that having multiple (asynchronous) races/factions is a design artifact of the past. Balancing issues aside, it forces the player to make an important choice before the game begins, acting on personal preference at best or reacting to balance issues at worst. In my eyes, it's always better for all the meaningful choices to happen during the game, with all players having access to the same features and tech tree to begin with.
Ideally, this means having only one "race", but it also means only one map - the map itself can still change somewhat regularly, but during the same period of time, everybody plays on the same one.
Also, all units should be designed in such a way that their effectiveness depends almost entirely on how much time a player commits to controlling it, and ultimately how good he is with that unit. Ideally, you will want different units to focus on all the different skills you can bring out in a player - some require more attention, some better mouse accuracy, some reward fast reactions, and so on. Shouldn't be more than 12-15 of them overall, if that.
On November 02 2012 15:55 red4ce wrote:
As far as RTS being 'dead' what I meant was what probe1 said in his post. Whereas action/adventure/shooters/rpgs are still innovating, almost all of the new RTS games are simply a pretty skin and a few twists pasted over 15 year old gameplay. This isn't inherently a bad thing and I'm sure the loyal fans are pleased, but I think I can safely say that I won't enjoy <insert game here> 3 since I didn't insert <insert game here> 2.
The reason why RTS genre is "dead" is because publishers still try to ship RTS games as $60 / AAA games, and that era is definitely at an end, which is why the companies are often proclaiming the genre to be "dead", whereas it's really only the big RTS titles/franchises that are being threatened.
RTS genre is much more suited for small, lean, and cheap (to make) games focusing on the core gameplay. I'm pretty sure the indie developers will take the genre over sooner or later, much like they have done with platformers recently.
|
The best RTS ever was made years ago, in like 2007!
The only reason Forged Alliance didn't take over the world is because it required more powerful PCs than people had at the time, a situation that has now changed. This game is the ultimate example of RTS with the way you constantly have to be refining and changing your strategies if you want to be better. People who have been playing it from release are still learning stuff, how much more scope for challenge can you possibly want?
If you're interested I'd check this out: www.faforever.com
|
On November 03 2012 03:20 DilliDalli wrote:The best RTS ever was made years ago, in like 2007! The only reason Forged Alliance didn't take over the world is because it required more powerful PCs than people had at the time, a situation that has now changed. This game is the ultimate example of RTS with the way you constantly have to be refining and changing your strategies if you want to be better. People who have been playing it from release are still learning stuff, how much more scope for challenge can you possibly want? If you're interested I'd check this out: www.faforever.com
Well that isn't the only game where players are still learning (BW the game people were still learning even 10 years into it, sc2 is the same way although only been 2 years so far).
I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively.
|
If you say "I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively"
then you haven't played the game.
Supcom FA can only be experienced in multiplayer battles where players are competent enough to make time the most important resource for the enemy. Supcom FA without pressure(AI sucks) is just sim city, it can hardly be called a strategy game.
Perhaps this is the reason a lot of people pass this game up. They beat the campaign, or play some skirmish but never touch multiplayer.
Like TLO said, "Someday they will make AI's that will play SC2 perfectly, they will never make a perfect AI for supcom FA,... you can utilize infinite APM..."
Impossible to teach a machine the fine detail necessary to make the types of decisions necessary for Supcom FA.
Comparing supcom FA to SC2 is insulting. Compare it to SCBW, if you want, that game was made by fans for fans and it was a work of art. Same with Supcom FA, all the latest balancing has been made by fans, and the game was designed by people who were fans and understood TA.
SC2 is made by publishers who want to make an esport, for those who are not blinded by hype see this clearly.
|
On November 03 2012 10:45 BurnedRice wrote:
If you say "I did enjoy supcom but I never found it fun to ever want to play competitively"
then you haven't played the game.
Supcom FA can only be experienced in multiplayer battles where players are competent enough to make time the most important resource for the enemy. Supcom FA without pressure(AI sucks) is just sim city, it can hardly be called a strategy game.
Perhaps this is the reason a lot of people pass this game up. They beat the campaign, or play some skirmish but never touch multiplayer.
Like TLO said, "Someday they will make AI's that will play SC2 perfectly, they will never make a perfect AI for supcom FA,... you can utilize infinite APM..."
Impossible to teach a machine the fine detail necessary to make the types of decisions necessary for Supcom FA.
Comparing supcom FA to SC2 is insulting. Compare it to SCBW, if you want, that game was made by fans for fans and it was a work of art. Same with Supcom FA, all the latest balancing has been made by fans, and the game was designed by people who were fans and understood TA.
SC2 is made by publishers who want to make an esport, for those who are not blinded by hype see this clearly.
I was just saying I found it fun to play but never would want to competitively. It's not my type of competitive game to want to play. Not saying it's a bad competitive game or anything just my thoughts on it are it's not my cup of tea.
I am personally a big fan of RTS games like starcraft/age of empires/company of heroes those types are games I like a lot ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
