RTS games, how could they be made better?

[utilae]

What are some common problems with Real-Time-Strategy games and how could these problems be resolved?

I think from what I have seen from many people, some problems:
-Need to micromanage
-Clickfest

[OceanMachine]

The problems with RTS games:

1. The complete and utter lack of strategy.

Ok, that should do it.

But there are a few games that have done things right where RTS is concerned, mostly the Close Combat series and the Total War series. Slow things down dramatically and add realistic depth (ie terrain, morale, fatigue, etc).

[Aquitaine]

I've been playing with Rise of Nations recently. It's impressive, but it still has that 'build up and build up and attack all at once' feel that every RTS, no matter how evolved, has (at least for me). I think Blizzard puts out some polished games, but I don't like them. (sorry)

The Total War series is the exception. I put those in a different category. Some excellent work, if only they'd make the campaign multiplayer.

[Nightfish]

StarCraft was a very good blizzard game. Interface was not 100% perfect but the game was pretty well balanced and quite fun.

[utilae]

The problems with RTS games:
1. The complete and utter lack of strategy.

I think that is incorrect, actually there is strategy in everything.
It's all about:
where you are now
where you want to be
and how do you get there

You say that it is all just tank rushing, which is indeed true, a common problem indeed, but some games have handled that quite well.

Emperor Battle For Dune is a good example. Marching an army across the desert and you have to worry about sand worms, and the Attriedies have this superweapon that can make your entire army retreat off the map.

Anyway, I enjoy RTS games, there good fun, I am not super fast or anything and I still win, etc.

[jbarcz1]

Well, a lot of the time an RTS will get reduced to who can pump the most units in the fastest time. And because of the pace, mouse control is a huge factor. A person who can click and issue orders faster will generally win over somebody who is sluggish with the mouse. Depends on the game, but I've found its generally true. It is especially true in Starcraft.

I enjoy a good game of starcraft because it forces me to think about my goals while at the same time moving my mouse frantically about responding to the game. It's about timing and reflexes just as much as strategy.

While its a fun game, I play it for entirely different reasons than I play MOO2 or MOO3 or SMAC.

[utilae]

In a game like Starcraft, I just queue heaps of units, so the production line is more or less automated, while I position groups of units around my base. I usually build up an assault army, while reinforcing my defending forces. No clickfest there, only in battle I see a problem with clickfest. Because you have a group vs a group, but you can only make your groups attack one unit at a time. In Homeworld, you can do group attack, so instead of clicking to a attack a single unit, you can select a group of units to attack. I think its a very good idea.

[jbarcz1]

True that. Only I find that I often forget to queue up new units, which can be fatal if the other guy doesn't.

Only played homeworld's demo a little bit, but it seemed like it had a lot of promise. I've heard good things about it.

[OceanMachine]

There isn't much depth of stategy in Homeworld, but the graphics and atmosphere of the game are phenomenal. Outside of Close Combat and Total War, Homeworld was my most fun RTS experience.

[drek]

Homeworld is my second favorite RTS-ish game.

Myth I and II take the prize for my all time favorite. The physics system was incredible, the graphics of Myth II stand up even today. The music was awesome, written by the same people who made that catchy flintstones vitamins diddy .

If you've never tried Myth....well, try it!

[utilae]

In Homeworld I found 3D a little dificult, but it was still pretty cool.

Not much variety in units (ie just basic stats being the difference) or races (really just different skins, with like one different unit per side).

[burndaddy]

homeworld was breathtaking when it came out -- but the lack of any sort of map terrain really blew alot of strategic possibilities out. that, and the similarity of the sides... great game other than that

Rise of Nations is quite good though. And I'm REALLY looking forward to Frozen Throne, for Pandaren Brewmasters if nothing else

[gb207]

What are some common problems with Real-Time-Strategy games and how could these problems be resolved?

I think from what I have seen from many people, some problems:
-Need to micromanage
-Clickfest

My list of problems with RTBS:

1 The player is not always aware of everything that is going on and able to respond immediately and this could make a difference. For e.g. at the same time 4 or more different things might all happen at the same time:
a) build queue
b) building attacked
c) a distant battle player is focusing on
d) a spell or ability of the characters that the player wants to use.
e) 3 buildings have finished researching new abilities/spells and need to research new spells
f) the peons have exhausted the lumber patch and need new orders

It's simply impossible to know everything that is going on - there's too much happening and it's all happening too fast. So I'd say its not strategy really. This is why I prefer TBS.

To alleviate the above problem, I'd say either the player has to be aware of what's happening in all of his territory and able to control everything at once - perhaps by the use of mini screens which come up to show where attention is needed, or that the main screen has columns on the side to control buildings etc so that the player doesn't have to leave what he is viewing to control things in other parts of the map. Or that the AI has to play a big role in assisting the player.

2 Is it entertainment or work? Not enough reward for clickfest/micromanage. Not relaxing.

[Impaler]

I am a big StarCraft Fan and even lead a small Clan on BattleNet. StarCraft is my favorite RTS game of all time.

Most of the Strategy in a RTS game comes in the form of unit counter and balancing. Much like Rock-Paper-Scicosrs one type of unit or mix of them will beat another mix but possibly fail to a 3rd strategy. Asuming two oponents have equaly good hand-eye cordination the winner will be the one that chossess to build the most apropriate counter to his oponents strategy.

It boils down to chossing to spend your resorces on a combination of 3 things. Offence, defence and Growth (this aplis to turnbased games too) Gworth will beat Defence, Defence can beat Offence (oponent exosts himself in an unsuccesfull attack and they you counter attack with your reserves or use your reserves to grow). Offence will beat Growth.

I also run into a lot of sub-contous timing in StarCraft, enough so that people often accuse me of Map Hacking (use of a hack to remove the fog-of-war which ofcorse I dont do). You just develop as sense of the time it takes to do something and you get a feeling "I better deply some Air Defence in this Area" and 10 seconds later a Reaver drop comes to that very spot! Things like that keep me playing StarCraft after all these years.

[Moriarty]

I'm a single-player type generally, so my primary concern is lack of replayability.
Because generally everything the AI ever does against you is always going to stick to a bunch of rules that after a few games you can predict as well as day and night.

Oh suppose my fave RTS would be Total Annihilation. There's no single reason, but of all the game's i've played, it's the most replayable (maybe because there are LOADS of mods for it, or maybe because there are hundreds of types of units a 'normal' game).

AI's never adapt. humans can, but that's what multiplayer is for (and then you have people who cheat to contend with (and yes i know that most AI's cheat... but they do it to be fair... humans do it for exactly the opposite reason ))

Moriarty