Ok this is following on from Cliffski''s comment in my other post on here ("Specialising" Researching in Empire Games). I''ve started a new post for it, because I think it is a slightly seperate issue (and more related to RTS''s) The relevent bit of his post reads... In SFB, there were so many units and races that often when you went into battle you didnt have the vaguest idea what the enemy ships were capable of, which made for interesting games. So far, every game gives the player access to everything, maybe not all at the same time, but i can (for example) play as any race in AOE2, so when im Teutons V Britains, i know what the Britains have because i have played them before. Why dosent someone do a game where different copies of the game actually had different units? that would be cool, there would be no way to know what kind of forces the other guys had, and they woudnt know what your weapons did till you used them. Of course this would bug people who thought it was a trick to make them buy multiple copies..... ho hum. I think it would be an idea instead of giving away coppies with different units, give away some kind of unit "creator" which would allow the player to create his own units by "equiping" them, much the way starship design is handled in Empire games. by that I mean having a selection of basic unit outlines from which u pick from... I''ll give an example to show what I mean... a "Scout" unit outline could have a mount slot (for a horse or camel or something) and a melee weapon slot. an "Infantry" unit outline could have an armour, melee weapon and shield slot... etc.

I believe that Total ahnialiation did this, although i never played it, there were lots of units.
The problem with just making the units editable is one of having to play balance for units you dont know exist which is tricky. Also, you can just download other peoples units from the web.
What I am suggesting is radically different units, even gameplay abilities that cant be player created, yet are unique between different copies,
For example, Aliens vs Predator could have been sold as 3 seperate but linked games. Imagine how gutted you would be as an alien, who had always fought aliens or predators, and suddenly got attacked by a marine with a flamethrower! Better still would be the option to sell an add on pack with a fourth player type, rather than just extra levels etc for the existing ones.
Its probably not practical, possibly the first step in this direction is Black and White, where your creature will develop his own physical appearance and personlity unique to your copy. I would still like to see it go further though.

http://www.positech.co.uk

In Warzone 2100, I believe, there WERE no preset units ''cept your truck. All your units were designed and built based on techonologies you found in the game world. You attack an enemy base and they have flamethrowers, and you don''t, you can get it from them in the form of an "artifact" you can research. Then you put together any vehicle base, add the flame thrower and propulison. and boom, your new unit.

quote:
I think it would be an idea instead of giving away coppies with different units, give away some kind of unit "creator"

The problem with this (IMHO) is that it''s unfair to the players, unless you release the game simultaneously (sp?) as both $39.99 boxed edition and $9.99 Jewel case--99% of the players are going to want both copies, but aren''t going to want to pay $80...

As for TA, it didn''t ship with a unit editor, but they can be downloaded from the ''net...at least you used to be able to, I haven''t looked for a while. I don''t think play-balancing will be too big of an issue, and here''s why: the players who max out a unit (super high health, attack, and armor, low cost and build time) are going to be the ones who only play single player--hey, it''s their game, let them screw it up if they want to. On the other hand, there are those people who play multi a lot, and most aren''t going to want to get into a side-battle seeing who can build the biggest, strongest, cheapest unit--besides, once you build it, since all systems (generally) have to have the mod installled, if you have a maxed out, one-sided unit, your opponents aren''t going to install it just to lose to you.

The other way around this is to have the unit cost determiner hidden in code. Sure, some people are going to figure out the basic formula, but so what? If it''s in code, they can''t change it (usually). Let them design the model themselves, and input certain characteristics (such as weapon exit position, whether it''s turreted or the body must rotate, weapon damage, range, armor damage, speed, weaknesses?, etc.) and then let the program factor all of those in. If the player/designer doesn''t like it, tough--they created it, deal with it.

I''m sure there are other (relatively) easy play-balancing tricks, but I''ll leave them up to the rest of you...(that''s code for I can''t think of any more right now.)
--


WNDCLASSEX Reality;
...
...
Reality.lpfnWndProc=ComputerGames;
...
...
RegisterClassEx(&Reality);


Unable to register Reality...what''s wrong?
---------
Dan Upton
Lead Designer
WolfHeart Software

There are some excellent ideas here.

I agree that an equipment editor can be a pain to balance, but as was already mentioned, there are ways to limit this.

Also, I like the idea of finding unfamiliar equipment during gameplay. Perhaps it would be best if, rather than being able to research the components, the player could only use the equipment captured. This adds a new dynamic to the game. How do you capture a 23 ton armored robot without destroying it?

Also, I think that one of the features which is being overlooked here is forward compatibility. This is something which I have not seen in any games, but would be an excellent design tool. Of course, implementation could be a bit tricky, but if it is well thought out, it could work without any problem. Sure, the first project is going to require a little more time (and therefore money,) but the rewards would more than offset this. I hope to see this implemented in games soon, since it would make for much better games.

~~Jonathon

quote:
Also, I like the idea of finding unfamiliar equipment during gameplay. Perhaps it would be best if, rather than being able to research the components, the player could only use the equipment captured. This adds a new dynamic to the game. How do you capture a 23 ton armored robot without destroying it?

Some game did this...but I can''t remember which one it was. Actually, I don''t think you got to ''just'' disable it--rather, you scooped up pieces that happened to survive the explosion.

Interstate ''76 (and probably ''82, but I don''t know for sure) also had something along these lines--after each mission, your narcoleptic mechanic would tell you what all he found, and you can choose what to keep and what to leave behind. He can repair things for you, but you have limited room for parts. Tires will take normal wear-and-tear damage, but other parts can be salvaged at higher quality by that ''new dynamic''--you could use a pistol to shoot the driver (unlimited ammo, fortunately) and the car would be in better condition.

But yeah, you''re right, that could add a whole new strategy element to the RTS...which may be just the thing the genre is starting to need.
--



WNDCLASSEX Reality;
...
...
Reality.lpfnWndProc=ComputerGames;
...
...
RegisterClassEx(&Reality);


Unable to register Reality...what''s wrong?
---------
Dan Upton
Lead Designer
WolfHeart Software

So, we''re trying to create a situation where players do not know what to expect... until the enemy actually starts firing.

Example: In Command and Conquer, both players will pretty much know all the details about eachothers units. Tank A is tough but slow, Tank B is fast but weak.

To get that ''surprise'' effect that we all would like (it DOES make battles more interesting and a whole lot more exciting if you ask me) I think we should just do away with some things. For example... Spotting range. This is usually used in games to determine how far ahead a unit can see, mostly to spot enemy units. But, when a spotting range is X, does that mean that when the unit spots something at distance X, he should be able to determine what type of unit he''s spotted? ''Ah, I see something at the edge of my vision... it''s a male soldier, carrying a rocket launcher'' or ''That little dot over there in the distance, that''s a tank of type A''

This is just a small example (might be fun to make spotting range different from recognizing range, so that a unit could spot ''an'' enemy unit at spotting range, but only recognize it once it comes closer).

Another thing idea that might start some thinking:

What if for example units of the opposing force ALL look identical. And only once you start to see what each one does will you be able to determine what each one is.
Example:
3 different tanks. Look identical. But each one fires different shells. One is gas, one is explosives, one is sticky goo. Each shell type might have completely different effects, so you wouldn''t know what strategy to use against them until they start firing and you can determine which is which.
or
3 different aliens. Look identical. But each one has different powers. One can breath fire, one can breath ice, one can breath electricity. Each breath type might have completely different effects, so you wouldn''t know what strategy to use against them until they start breathing and you can determine which is which.

In these scenarios, both players MIGHT know exactly what each unit is capable of, but they can''t determine exactly which unit does what until they see it.

Just some brainstormin'', no real beauties here.

Hmmm why is it the topics I start that I''m more interested in never get anywhere, where as the one''s I''m not overly bothered about go on an on.. lol...

anyway..

Silvermyst, this is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of, the unsurity (if thats a word?) of what an enemy unit is capable of until you have engaged them in combat, when I started the "Specialising" Researching in Empire Games topic. It add''s something to the game I feel when you dont know what your enemies are capable of UNTIL you meet them...

NightWraith

One major strategic concern, guys: Unpredictable units potentially sap the strategy right out of a game, and turn it into a contest of luck.

Consider Civilization: Call To Power. There were so many friggin'' different units by the end game that it was nigh impossible to plan a strategy. Since you did not know what to expect, you could not plan.

In an RTS, you usually have a build / deploy time pressure. It''s not just that you don''t know what your enemy is doing. You could counter this by observation. It''s that there would be no main strategy, because anything you create could be easily countered.

The reason why Starcraft is such a great game, and still played 3 years after release (and with "substandard 2D graphics") is because units have well matched strengths and weaknesses. The fun comes not in deploying an invincible strategy, but in outhinking your opponent given a limited set of strategies (made possible by a limited set of units).

BTW, historically, warring parties typically get several iterations to defend against new strategies. Or else, like with the Assyrians & iron, or the Mongols & fast mounted calvary, one side gets hopelessly overrun.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:
One major strategic concern, guys: Unpredictable units potentially sap the strategy right out of a game, and turn it into a contest of luck.

There''s a toss-up here: do you want to change the game here, or do you want to make it "real"? If you want to make it real, then making the models/sprites 99% the same (slight color pattern differences, maybe) would be more realistic--how many armies would dress their rocketeeres differently than rifle squadrons?

To change the game, maybe make slightly less subtle changes, but still something that you''d have to notice, to reward better, more observant players. I don''t know if that makes any sense, but if the sprite/model has a slightly different posture or color scheme between even just two different infantry types, the more observant players will do a better job of strategizing around them.

I''m sorry if none of this makes sense--I got sidetracked halfway through this post and I almost am making no sense to myself now...such is the effect of lack of sleep and no caffeine...
--


WNDCLASSEX Reality;
...
...
Reality.lpfnWndProc=ComputerGames;
...
...
RegisterClassEx(&Reality);


Unable to register Reality...what''s wrong?
---------
Dan Upton
Lead Designer
WolfHeart Software