TLDW: "By the way I'm going to call out all RTS games right now. I know this is a stormgate video but everybody does this weird thing where they're like, cuz I talked to all these publishers and ones for games that people don't even know about yet, they're a little bit too caught up with like new players, and then you go okay but you need to have hardcore players too."
This confirms there is another big RTS in development that no one knows about from one of the publishers he's spoken to. We know about Zerospace, Battle Aces, Stormgate and Tempest Rising, but what could this secret RTS be, and by who?
Will update this thread as we find out more information.
Update 5/17/2025:https://x.com/Narushio_wuwa/status/1899178803324498359 Could Chinese developers of "Wuthering Waves" be making an RTS? They have job postings citing they are making a "New Competitive Game" and one of job tag descriptions is "RTS Games."
Disclaimer: This title was supposed to be about a secret rts in development, but mods changed it. I do not care what people want in a new rts game i am just using this thread to update any new information i find out about this secret rts.
Update 06/06/2025:
Game of Thrones War for Westeros was announced. Not only is it an RTS, if you read the description it says it is a "Classic RTS." This is very inspiring to me I think there is a good shot it plays the way us old heads want it to. I think this is the more likely game considering it's prestige of IP and "classic RTS" that has been in contact with Tasteless.
Personally, I am excited we have another RTS in the works since Stormgate, Battle Aces, And ZeroSpace seem to not have fully won over the StarCraft audience. If this company is talking with Tasteless, I think it being starcraft-like is not a far shot. Could it be from Mike Morhaime's company Dreamhaven? Secret Blizzard RTS? Warcraft 4? does anyone have any other thoughts?
In general I agree with the notion that even though game studios say "more new player friendly", they don't really succeed in that. And they also just make the game less interesting from a high-skill cap perspective.
It would be a refreshing take if a studio admitted - we don't know how to make it easy but we know how to make something awesome for hardcore players.
Specifically on the Battle Aces. It makes sense to start with a lot of workers so action starts right away. However, it's unfortunately also quite stressful when you need to make decisions ASAP as a new player. So game-devs that try this approach need to think better around how to allow players to worry less about multiple different decisions and just focus on one part at the time.
I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
But they are sucecsful at making the game easy. Every single RTS that has tried to make the game easier hasn't succeeding in significantly reducing the skill floor, and yet they all managed to significantly reduce the micro-skill cap.
Now I do think the real issue is incompetence - it should be feasible to make the game significantly easier while raising the skill-cap, but I think we have to be realistic as well and acknowledge that a lot of game devs sucks and they probably have an easier time succeeding by narrowing down the target group.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
You don't have to be the target group for this game. A game can do reasonably well if it's developed efficiently (so no Frostgiant money wasting) and has a clear idea for the game they want to develop and target group it tries to reach.
I’d just like to see someone really nail whatever they’re trying to do, and have that bit of vision.
Could be super hardcore, or super casual. If the former it might scratch that StarCraft itch for me. If the latter it could be an ideal game to get Minibat into the genre and play together.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
Yeah, I already have more games on Gamepass alone than I can play. And I have a good time
But my habits have always really been I’ll have a ‘main’ game I’ll play for years and years, or follow too in the case of an SC2.
I think often the hardcore/casual framing is overly focused on hard/easy to play lines. At least for me it’s more a matter of ‘is this something I can have fun with for a few hours, or beat in a week and I’ve had my fun, versus it being something I could envision playing for 5+ years regularly.
On May 02 2025 17:51 ETisME wrote: I personally disagree with it. There's no real need for cater to a hardcore community, maybe appealing to hardcore players is an issue.
I am looking at some tower defense games and there are consistent new game with new ideas with RTS elements, and some are doing fairly decent.
I am playing expedition 33, a genre (turn based combat) that even Final Fantasy was convinced it's a dead-end. Turns out that's not necessarily true, it just needs to be a great game even if the hardcore turn based fans would be turned off by the necessity of QTE.
I think the big thing between hardcore and casual is longevity.
How many of those fun new tower defence games are still going to be talked about in a year? I think if your trying to make a game that people will play for years to come you need that hardcore player element who will keep playing the game they like for years.
If you want to just make a good game that people will (hopefully) buy and then move on to the next project then I agree you don't 'need' the hardcore players.
Majority of them will fail, but that happens in all genres. Hardcore players were all casual once. That goes for any games, including SC series.
Even the indie turn based 2d tower defence game, the last spell, has a concurrent 300 players. That's double/triple stormgate numbers. oldie classic battle of middle earth 2 still got a fair number of players and interest. Titanfall 2 etc.
It doesn't really need to be catering to hardcore, players will grow to it if it's fun.
A game can appeal to hardcore and casual fans. Almost all games that we consider hardcore do so. Sc2 has the campaign, custom games, and coop. The reason it lost to competitors like LoL was due to an outdated business model. F2P games will always attract more gamers. Instead of focusing on appealing to casuals/hardcore gamers they should focus on creating a good game.
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport
On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote: For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport
I agree with your 2 and 3. But I think a decent AI is important as well. Doing comp stomps with other people is another good way to get into more competitive modes. Perhaps even dedicated PvE modes such as SC2 coop.
On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote: For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related.
This is definitely one of the reasons why I can't be bothered with Stormgate. That they have legally-distinct Terran, Zerg and Protoss factions is a turn-off rather than a turn-on.
On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote: For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport
For me its: 1) Base building and tiers/ages. In my opinion base building is as much a core part of an RTS as resource gathering.
2) Scope. I need to be able to field BIG ARMIES. OK, maybe not on the level of Supreme Commander, but definitely more than say Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes. The maps need to be big, open, with multiple paths to outmaneuver your enemy and launch surprise attacks. Game has to be macro-friendly. On that note, micro should be its own reward. Don't put in needless abilities on units just for the sake of clicking them so the player has something to do. I'm looking at you Red Alert 3...
3) "rule of cool" factions and something that makes them unique. I don't want to say "unique races" because that kind of disqualifies Age of Empires 2 (and 4?) right now, because the civilizations in that game are very copy/pasta of one another, but obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses and UNIQUE UNITS (from the castle). I think AoE2:DE is currently the best RTS on the market.
On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote: For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport
For me its: 1) Base building and tiers/ages. In my opinion base building is as much a core part of an RTS as resource gathering.
2) Scope. I need to be able to field BIG ARMIES. OK, maybe not on the level of Supreme Commander, but definitely more than say Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes. The maps need to be big, open, with multiple paths to outmaneuver your enemy and launch surprise attacks. Game has to be macro-friendly. On that note, micro should be its own reward. Don't put in needless abilities on units just for the sake of clicking them so the player has something to do. I'm looking at you Red Alert 3...
3) "rule of cool" factions and something that makes them unique. I don't want to say "unique races" because that kind of disqualifies Age of Empires 2 (and 4?) right now, because the civilizations in that game are very copy/pasta of one another, but obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses and UNIQUE UNITS (from the castle). I think AoE2:DE is currently the best RTS on the market.
Don't you think supreme commander is a bit low? Isn't it like only 20k units per player with mods? Or like 8k units until it gets unplayable in multiplayer? Higher expectations here is a nice to have. Allows for 64vs64 players or very large armies in user generated scenarios.
The most successful RTS series in history ever had pop limit at about 200 or lower. - Starcraft 1-2, pop cap 200 - Warcraft 3, pop cap 100 - Age of Empires series, pop cap 200 - Command & Conquer series including Red Alert - don't have visible pop cap but players almost never have more than 100-150 units - Company of Heroes / Dawn of War, about 15 squads or vehicles in total, maybe 20 max.
So maybe if you want your RTS to be really successful, you know what to do.
On May 08 2025 04:00 ZeroByte13 wrote: The most successful RTS series in history ever had pop limit at about 200 or lower. - Starcraft 1-2, pop cap 200 - Warcraft 3, pop cap 100 - Age of Empires series, pop cap 200 - Command & Conquer series including Red Alert - don't have visible pop cap but players almost never have more than 100-150 units - Company of Heroes / Dawn of War, about 15 squads or vehicles in total, maybe 20 max.
So maybe if you want your RTS to be really successful, you know what to do.
In Starcraft and Warcraft, units cost a varying amount of supply. A zergling costs 1/2 of pop, an Ultralisk 4. A peon costs 1, a grunt 3 and a tauren 5. In AoE2 everything is uniform and costs 1 supply. In CoH (I only have experience with CoH 2, didn't buy CoH3 and I've already forgotten CoH1) people would usually field 4-5 infantry squads and 3-4 vehicles. Also a King Tiger costs a lot more vehicle pop space than a clown car.
On May 08 2025 12:14 Latham wrote: In CoH (I only have experience with CoH 2, didn't buy CoH3 and I've already forgotten CoH1) people would usually field 4-5 infantry squads and 3-4 vehicles. Also a King Tiger costs a lot more vehicle pop space than a clown car.
I tihnk I had about 13-14 squads + vehicles in total in CoH, at most. In some campaign levels. In multiplayer you probably almost never have more than 10-11.
I want LAN mode, or some alternative that means the game will still be playable even if the devs decide to shut down the servers (like open sourcing the server code, or direct P2P). Stormgate isn't worth investing the time to learn because it'll be unplayable when the studio folds, while on the other hand, BW will be forever playable at any patch.
On May 08 2025 04:00 ZeroByte13 wrote: The most successful RTS series in history ever had pop limit at about 200 or lower. - Starcraft 1-2, pop cap 200 - Warcraft 3, pop cap 100 - Age of Empires series, pop cap 200 - Command & Conquer series including Red Alert - don't have visible pop cap but players almost never have more than 100-150 units - Company of Heroes / Dawn of War, about 15 squads or vehicles in total, maybe 20 max.
So maybe if you want your RTS to be really successful, you know what to do.
In Starcraft and Warcraft, units cost a varying amount of supply. A zergling costs 1/2 of pop, an Ultralisk 4. A peon costs 1, a grunt 3 and a tauren 5. In AoE2 everything is uniform and costs 1 supply. In CoH (I only have experience with CoH 2, didn't buy CoH3 and I've already forgotten CoH1) people would usually field 4-5 infantry squads and 3-4 vehicles. Also a King Tiger costs a lot more vehicle pop space than a clown car.
On May 04 2025 23:13 WGT-Baal wrote: For me there are 3 key parts to a good rts:
1) unique race design. I don't want to play a sc-like or warcraft-like game since i could just go ahead and play those instead. I d like a truly new set of races with different mechanics. Granted it could be tricky to balance. Random example: we could have naval units, supply/resource convoys, communication infrastructure, whatever thing not directly combat related
2) a good solid campaign. The campaign also acts as a tutorial but it should be good as standalone. Warcraft amd starcraft did great that way.
3) a good non 1v1 multiplayer. It can be ums but also 2v2, 3v3 and more. Bw was ok at first with that, Warcraft not as great, sc2 terrible imho. (As standalone, all 3 were great with UMS)
Building "for esport" should just be the observer and replay functions, the rest of the game should just be good instead of shoehorning a bad game into esport
For me its: 1) Base building and tiers/ages. In my opinion base building is as much a core part of an RTS as resource gathering.
2) Scope. I need to be able to field BIG ARMIES. OK, maybe not on the level of Supreme Commander, but definitely more than say Dawn of War 2 or Company of Heroes. The maps need to be big, open, with multiple paths to outmaneuver your enemy and launch surprise attacks. Game has to be macro-friendly. On that note, micro should be its own reward. Don't put in needless abilities on units just for the sake of clicking them so the player has something to do. I'm looking at you Red Alert 3...
3) "rule of cool" factions and something that makes them unique. I don't want to say "unique races" because that kind of disqualifies Age of Empires 2 (and 4?) right now, because the civilizations in that game are very copy/pasta of one another, but obviously have their own strengths and weaknesses and UNIQUE UNITS (from the castle). I think AoE2:DE is currently the best RTS on the market.
absolutely agree with your 1) and 3). 2) i think i d have to see how it s done, but i have no strong feelings either way on the number of units. Absolutely agree again on multiple paths and that micro should be its own reward and not an ability for the sake of an ability (i already think sc2 went too far there vs bw).
Hopefully we also get LAN and decent AI as well (including PvE!), those are important. Looks like we re converging to a cool list y all let s make a studio! j/k
If I had to make a list I'd say 1. good pathing. A lot of RTS, especially old RTS feel clunky or unresponsive and that significantly lowers my engagement. Micro is cool, but if it doesn't work half of the time because the unit I'm trying to evacuate before it dies can't path a way to the back of my army within 5 seconds it just feels like micro has no point. 2. Unique factions/playstyles. AoE2 is pretty bad at this, but still has a bunch of unit comps that play differently. I think a lot of RTS lack a clear identity for factions or just copy-paste something else (looking at you generic future human faction that seems to be in every second RTS) and if the unit design and faction design doesn't set them apart it's difficult to feel like I haven't played this and seen this better. 3. Good PvE. I'm mainly playing PvE nowadays, so having an engaging campaign and a good coop go a long way.
I'm not that picky when it comes to micro vs macro, I enjoy micro heavy games like DoW and WC3 as much as more macro heavy games like AoE2 or Sc2. I think micro should be intuitive, but that's about it.
On May 09 2025 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I want alphastar styled AI opponents at various skill levels.
Not worth spending millions of dollars per map and per matchup to train it every time you update the game
it gets less expensive every year. they start by training it against Bronze Leaguers on the ladder and 1v1 PvE games.
It’s still expensive, and probably not worth it for the returns you get. I’ve yet to find a public record of AlphaStar’s cost, but estimates I’ve seen are in the millions, and some you need the fingers of two hands to count.
It’s not even that great a training tool for PvP from what I saw with AlphaStar, in that it did a lot of effective, but wonky and off-meta stuff.
There’s also the problem that you need the players before you get the AI, so it’s not something you can introduce with a release.
In a hypothetical world let’s say AlphaStar was in SC2 at release, with beta players and QA players punched in. Well, what’s it learning? A bunch of builds and styles that would become antiquated very quickly once the hive mind got their hands on the game, and maps started to change. So you gotta keep training and training , which costs.
It really comes down to whether it’s worth doing, outside of a challenge/research project which AlphaStar was. Spend potentially millions replicating human players at various MMRs, or just have a ladder and let humans play other humans.
If the price ever comes down to the effect it’s a trivial expense, yeah then maybe it’s a decent investment.
In terms of PvE experiences, perhaps it’s a worthwhile avenue of exploration, although I think it may be an avenue that people like in theory more than practice.
Brutal in SC2 is a decent challenge, even for a decent multiplayer player, and I’ve played many RTS games that are a cakewalk if you’ve like 20 years playing competitive RTS games.
A smarter AI perhaps pushes the scales too much and renders certain mission scenarios basically impossible to do. If you can’t exploit a predictable, dumb AI, missions like hero missions, or ones with limited forces, or ‘you’re outnumbered, outgunned, hold on’ become undoable.
Yeah like an AI that properly counter-micros, or doesn’t leave lings and ultras getting stuck on depot walls, or figures out I’ve got 2 tank lines at two entrances and just builds a bunch of mutas and backstabs, yeah it’s cool on an intellectual level, but in game you’ll just die.
I think more so than other genres, a programmatic dumb AI fits RTS that bit better.
Nothing fancy. Just some NEW ideas besides "what if we made RTSs more automated". Every RTS coming out is just a nostalgia-based game with zero new ideas, or an automated RTS meant to appeal to casual players that will never play the game anyway.
StarCraft 1: 3 incredibly unique factions, very creative designs for units/spells War3: adding heros to RTS formula SC2: far less creative than previous blizz games but still had some cool unique ideas for units/spells etc Stormgate: zero new ideas Battle Aces: what if a game that is JUST sc2 micro and no strategy/macro (all unit designs are copied from SC2 but more muted/boring) Zerospace: what if war3 again
How SC2 is less creative than BW when it had - warp mechanics for Protoss - creep spread for Zerg - many units which are not just bunch of stats like most BW units are, with interesting passives or abilities - far, far fewer useless or almost useless units - top bar abilities (in campaign / coop) - branching campaign missions with meta-upgrades between them, with different mercs / upgrades / mutations / etc. - unique mechanics for many missions - coop mode with 18 (!) very unique commanders ?
BW is so "standard' in comparison IMO, and its 3 races are less unique than any of 18 commanders in SC2 coop.
okay this is gonna be bizarre if true, but could chinese developer of gacha game "Wuthering Waves" be making an RTS? They have job postings citing they are making a "New Competitive Game" and one of job tag descriptions is "RTS Games."
Could this be the secret RTS in development Tasteless was talking about?
On May 19 2025 01:41 DucK- wrote: I don't play ladder matches. I only play campaign.
My wish is for a game with good storyline. With good factions/races that are very different from each other. Yet there is somewhat balance.
Ay basically I want another starcraft/warcraft with new story hahaha
Could probably make a first contact Starcraft story. Or a Warcraft with more of a focus on tribes/cities than global threats. Can't really continue the previous stories, need to jump into the future or the past, perhaps scaling it down or letting it take place over a long time period like Protoss expanding back out from whatever remains, where each mission is about setting them up for another 100 years.
I agree with you on the overall point though. Just do another campaign, you have assets and an engine already. I think SpellForce did that well for a long time. But I guess the problem is in how you monetize it, DLCs in general don't sell that well and doing enough for a full game is costly.
On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote: I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different!
I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders.
For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired.
I played BattleAces, I played Stormgate, I played ZeroSpace but none of them had that "oops I played 10 hours and now it's the middle of the night" effect on me. The opposite really: I was glad the session was done. Maybe it's just me and I'm not that into RTS anymore. Or maybe (like it was said many times before) the genre is so stale and boring and after 25 years of Starcraft and Warcraft I don't want any more iterations of known stuff but new and flashy and brave.
Last Steam RTS fest I played a demo from a game called Space Tales. Incredible funny and humorous game that had RTS boss battles. That was awesome! That got me excited!
On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote: I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different!
I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders.
For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired.
I think the genre does suffer from making stuff that sounds cool on paper, actually work and be fun consistently, or be a factor at all.
Or have a mechanic not just remain cool for the first, or tenth time, but hundredth or thousandth.
In a way I think RTS struggles with balancing complexity versus simplicity, which it kind of has to do. But perhaps too often errs with caution and leans to the latter.
I’m not saying don’t experiment, but I think to make it work you almost have to build your game entirely around a cool mechanic or two.
I’d love to see some more experimentation, but I think it needs focused. Try to bolt on cool mechanics all atop one another and you either end up with a mess of conflicting systems, or something that may work, but be very complicated to play.
I like blending political intrigue with RTS as an idea. I’m sorta picturing the Commandos series but you’re the French Resistance (or insert other movement, or hell have it be fictional). You gotta recruit, choose targets, manage the PR element etc. Tight RTT combat, and saboteurs being such a component of such warfare, destructible terrain and whatnot would be great here.
Whereas say I think if you added that in a blender to the traditional RTS eco, had some diplomacy layer, had a few other mechanics too and then that becomes potentially quite messy.
What I’d ideally like is another StarCraft. Doesn’t have to actually be StarCraft, but just that game and its niche in my life. That game that has me following after 15 years, friends made (possibly some enemies), a community like TL etc.
Failing that, I’d rather have a bunch of really solid, interesting experiences. Could be single-player, and I think that’s preferable for certain deviations from the classic formula.
I’d love to see a real large-scale multiplayer RTS, could be PvP or PvE focused. Have some players do the high level grand strategy a la generals, target choices and resource allocation etc, and other players are field commanders in the SC mould.
It’d be cool as shit to jump in with some buddies and conquer x sector of a wider persistent war over a week or whatever. Hard to make work I imagine so I think the game itself can’t be crazy complex, but I’d play the shit out of that.
On May 19 2025 07:07 WombaT wrote: I can sort of understand the difficulty in making that next big RTS given how almost every response here is totally different!
I want something completely different and novel. Tired of the current blueprints (even tho i play starcraft every week). Like there is no golden rule an RTS game cant borrow other genres or switch pov. Have a racing aspect to the game where you transport valuable resources and the faster you go the more dangerous it is and maybe your vehicle can tip over or whatever. Have and RTS take place completely underground and have a ground penetrating radar be your scout or vision until you hit chambers or buildings. Have one faction be the map environment itself where the plants and locals fight against whatever race or faction. Maybe have Political Opinion be a fourth resource, the warring factions have to keep the locals on their side or at least manageable, and you can use propaganda or bribery to start getting locals to harass the enemy or stop harassing you, and each level can have a gradient level of political opinion power scales, one map has very few locals and isnt really an issue, while another map the two warring factions *barely* have more power than the locals and propaganda and public outreach are the main factores (maybe even both players can lose to the locals). and in this case maybe its literally a RTS about revolutions and then you have the rebels vs the empire, and the key battles are mostly winning political debates and supporting charismatic leaders.
For a thinking mans genre, RTS designers are perhaps the most uncreative and uninspired.
I think the genre does suffer from making stuff that sounds cool on paper, actually work and be fun consistently, or be a factor at all.
Or have a mechanic not just remain cool for the first, or tenth time, but hundredth or thousandth.
In a way I think RTS struggles with balancing complexity versus simplicity, which it kind of has to do. But perhaps too often errs with caution and leans to the latter.
I’m not saying don’t experiment, but I think to make it work you almost have to build your game entirely around a cool mechanic or two.
I’d love to see some more experimentation, but I think it needs focused. Try to bolt on cool mechanics all atop one another and you either end up with a mess of conflicting systems, or something that may work, but be very complicated to play.
I like blending political intrigue with RTS as an idea. I’m sorta picturing the Commandos series but you’re the French Resistance (or insert other movement, or hell have it be fictional). You gotta recruit, choose targets, manage the PR element etc. Tight RTT combat, and saboteurs being such a component of such warfare, destructible terrain and whatnot would be great here.
Whereas say I think if you added that in a blender to the traditional RTS eco, had some diplomacy layer, had a few other mechanics too and then that becomes potentially quite messy.
What I’d ideally like is another StarCraft. Doesn’t have to actually be StarCraft, but just that game and its niche in my life. That game that has me following after 15 years, friends made (possibly some enemies), a community like TL etc.
Failing that, I’d rather have a bunch of really solid, interesting experiences. Could be single-player, and I think that’s preferable for certain deviations from the classic formula.
I’d love to see a real large-scale multiplayer RTS, could be PvP or PvE focused. Have some players do the high level grand strategy a la generals, target choices and resource allocation etc, and other players are field commanders in the SC mould.
It’d be cool as shit to jump in with some buddies and conquer x sector of a wider persistent war over a week or whatever. Hard to make work I imagine so I think the game itself can’t be crazy complex, but I’d play the shit out of that.
Maybe a spinoff on the classical Shattered Galaxy? There seems to be a project called Collapsed Galaxy 2 that fits that mold and depending on choices could be promising.
On May 22 2025 15:46 Grumbels wrote: Would it be too unreasonable to just expect some copy of Brood War, but better? I feel like all Mobas take that approach vs the original dota.
What about Starcraft 2? Oh wait, thats not worthy, am i right
On May 22 2025 17:35 Yrr wrote: Brood War works because of it pathing and unit selection deficiencies. I dont think you can copy any of it and expect modern players to like it.
I want more strategic depth and impact of decisions in a future rts. Age of Empires 4 does a better job at it but has issues of it's own.
How does it "work"? It only seems to "work" in South Korea and China. The rest of the world doesnt really seem to care, except for a tiny fraction of a fanbase.
It’s a pain in the ass to play in many ways.
However, you do get big, spread-out armies, battles for territories across whole maps, and a lot of impactful micro even when the game scales huge.
You have heavy air units that see use, but not air balls of death.
You also have a way longer build-up, early-game and mid-game. Slower eco ramp is part of it, macro being harder is also definitely a factor.
I assume Yurie means something similar, but I’m just speaking for myself.
I’d love all of those things, in a game that is less of a pain in the ass mechanically. However, I’ve yet to see a game with modern UI and QoL that remotely does them close to as good.
To the degree I’m not sure how doable it even is. You either have those things and janky controls, or you don’t and you have smoother controls.
Unlimited unit selection especially just fundamentally changes how armies work. Balls of high DPS ranged units especially just scale way beyond melee armies if you can gather them all easily.
If Terrans could just ball their marines and medics, it’s hard to see how SK Terran would be countered in BW. As it is they don’t so you can pick off stragglers with mutas and lings.
I think BW has a lot of attributes people like, or things they’d like to see in modern attempts. I just think those attributes are extremely difficult to replicate with the current mod cons in the genre.
How does it "work"? It only seems to "work" in South Korea and China. The rest of the world doesnt really seem to care, except for a tiny fraction of a fanbase.
Yeah certainly. I meant the balance and strategic depth of BW works because of its flaws. Noone wants to deal with those nowadays. In a smooth engine you get different results as in sc2.
On May 22 2025 21:08 WombaT wrote:
However, you do get big, spread-out armies, battles for territories across whole maps, and a lot of impactful micro even when the game scales huge.
You have heavy air units that see use, but not air balls of death.
You also have a way longer build-up, early-game and mid-game. Slower eco ramp is part of it, macro being harder is also definitely a factor.
I think age of empires 4 does these things at least better than sc2. Apart from the air units but not having air units might actually improve a game.
How does it "work"? It only seems to "work" in South Korea and China. The rest of the world doesnt really seem to care, except for a tiny fraction of a fanbase.
Yeah certainly. I meant the balance and strategic depth of BW works because of its flaws. Noone wants to deal with those nowadays. In a smooth engine you get different results as in sc2.
Just easy to learn and hard to master. Some micro takes high engagement, so only the best can quickly macro in the spare seconds. Some micro is pretty easy, in that you have the bigger army and you crush. The high Templar that storms, but also the speed zealots that a-move.
It’s just kind of insane to me that the RTS which basically lots of people agree is the best of all time and which still has a pro scene after 25 years can’t be replicated because it’s just taken for granted that modern kids are too stupid to get used to slightly clunky controls. Lots of kids played Brood War and became obsessed with it just 25 years ago. The game industry really sucks if even Blizzard won’t make a new RTS because of some capitalist wisdom of how RTS is a failed genre.
On May 23 2025 08:07 Grumbels wrote: because it’s just taken for granted that modern kids are too stupid to get used to slightly clunky controls.
They are not too stupid, they are too smart to not want to deal with mechanics as clunky as bw when there are so many games with more smooth controls and engines. I too played and loved bw as a child but dont want to deal with it anymore. I rather play sc2 or aoe4.
On May 23 2025 08:07 Grumbels wrote: because it’s just taken for granted that modern kids are too stupid to get used to slightly clunky controls.
They are not too stupid, they are too smart to not want to deal with mechanics as clunky as bw when there are so many games with more smooth controls and engines. I too played and loved bw as a child but dont want to deal with it anymore. I rather play sc2 or aoe4.
I got really into super mario kaizo games the last few years, and that's based on super mario world from 1992. Old games can still be playable and still hold up, even for medium-size audiences. Though those are fan made mods, which can be played PvE and developed by a single person. If you mod Brood War then you would have no playerbase, since it's a PvP game, and the attempt would fail.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't mind a clone of AOE4 but with a much shorter TTK. Maybe add some aliens in there and move the timeline ahead a few thousand years.
On May 23 2025 19:17 abuse wrote: Honestly, I probably wouldn't mind a clone of AOE4 but with a much shorter TTK. Maybe add some aliens in there and move the timeline ahead a few thousand years.
Doesn’t it already have aliens what with the Ancient Egyptians?
Game of Thrones War for Westeros was announced. Not only is it an RTS, if you read the description it says it is a "Classic RTS." I think this is the more likely game considering it's prestige of IP and "classic RTS" that has been in contact with Tasteless.
||
[Unrelated - Also petition for mods to change the title please. I don't think it really is too accurate for the goal of why I created this thread I am trying to follow upcoming RTS game development. As I did with Battle Aces and was the main information barer when no one knew anything I was sifting through job apps on the tencent lightspeed site and saw and extracting potential game mechanics based on job descriptions etc. I was the main person finding stuff out and I tend to follow again closely and that's what this thread is for. A mega thread of sorts for upcoming rts.]
According to Reddit rumor, the GOT RTS is using snowplay. Interesting if that's the case. I think it's not out of the question since they can then have all the UE5 tech for their more cinematic realism cutscenes
On June 07 2025 13:26 ETisME wrote: According to Reddit rumor, the GOT RTS is using snowplay. Interesting if that's the case. I think it's not out of the question since they can then have all the UE5 tech for their more cinematic realism cutscenes
Hopefully they optimize performance a lot or it is going to be small battles I guess. No real armies etc. Not sure Warhammer scale would work in that engine...
Though they might go the battle of middle earth route. It is a good path for showcasing heroic and named characters.
I hope they force their entire team to play battle for middle earth 1 and 2. Looks like they are heavily inspired by them and those titles did a lot of things right. Also so long ago a similar title released that cloning it with a new IP would be a decent release.
u guys are all talking about stuff that dont matter...
pop limit, unit x cost... bla bla bla...
RTS success is all about clean gameplay + clear and easy to understand visuals... thats why great RTS games are great, not because of some random number like pop or unit cost.
same reason why LoL and Dota2 are so popular... clean mechanics, easy to understand visuals... Champion designe doesnt matter, item cost doesnt matter, is all about gameplay and visuals.
thats why us hardcore fans keep playing after 20 years... Esports doesnt matter, obs mode doesnt matter, sandbox tool doesnt matter, all that matter is that the game FEELS GOOD AND LOOKS GOOD.
tbh the best RTS lately is this sc2 mode with bw sc2 and w3... zerospace and stormgate are trash in comparison.
games need vision and heart. if they have that, they will find an audience. a niche audience for something cool used to be a thing. these days we apparently can't make something decent with 50 million dollars and veteran industry devs, and end up shitting the bed as if we fell asleep on the soft serve lever, with the choco butthole excretion snaking out to infinity, drowning us all in leagues of fecal matter.
i'm ok to wait years for -that- game to come along, but it needs to believe in itself and have real human beings behind it. the details don't really matter. there's more than one way to cut the cake, or whateverthefuck.
i always think of it like excalibur in the stone. many have come along to try to pull that shit out but none have succeeded. as good as wc3 and broodwar are, they were just a blueprint of what was possible. we still haven't successfully followed up on those games yet. not really. excalibur is still in the stone.
I really just want an RTS with a kickass campaign, asymmetrical races, and co-op vs ai.
On May 02 2025 09:35 Optimate wrote: Petroglyph games has an unannounced RTS in development. They are former ex-Westwood Studios Employees. The company that made Command and Conquer.
I want Petroglyph to succeed, especially since they're from my hometown, but god bless I don't think they have enough capital to make a great game and I don't think the ex westwood employees tag works 20 years later.
I know they probably got a good influx of cash from the CnC remasters, but idk. It feels like they havent been able to catch a break. Their last big release was in 2015 with Grey Goo and I don't think they've gotten anything near that budget.
On June 08 2025 09:46 RogerChillingworth wrote: games need vision and heart. if they have that, they will find an audience. a niche audience for something cool used to be a thing.
i still thinking stormgate has a chance but this is a terrible argument. this isnt an anime where u can just will something into existence. there are good ideas, and there bad ideas. stormgate early vision was not very congruent with what gamers want . i dont think they would have even found a niche audience as 25 concurrents isnt likely sustainable...
EPT
