Topic: Next-Gen RTS

[stuck]

With all this talk of the degredation of gaming, I've decided to put up a poll. What new innovative features would you like to see in the next-gen RTS to break away from the mold? These are just some of my ideas, but feel free to add more.

1) More diverse/playable factions. For example, Starcraft has 3 diverse factions, do you want more (4 or 5)? Or maybe just more slightly different races (a la AoE)?

2) New resource system. Tired of having peons go around and chop wood? Suggest a different way of gatherin resources. (Perhaps one time events like "Sir, there has been a new forest discovered shall we harvest it for ten gold?"

3) Advaned tactics. Rise of Nations touched on this, but imagine taking it further. For example, trenches, stationary artillery, flanking, retreating, morale. Suggest more.

4) Units different from eachother. Like chess, individual units are drastically different from eachother bringing a whole new dimension to the strategy.

5) RPG characteristis for each character. For example, you can only build foot soldiers. You make some work at a blacksmith to supply your people with swords. In essence, your characters are built with a general specialization (builder, infantry) and are further specialized depending on what you have built. (foot soldier -> horseman -> horse archer -> heavy horse archer)

Post suggestions.

[Daxx]

I voted advanced tactics and other.

My "other" being:
A better support system for troops, less built around gathering resources which are magically used to create troops; but to have things like supply trains, resources which are more detailed, maintainance for units (and a more realistic system of doing so whereby certain maintainance affects the abilities of the troops). Also training and the ability for reforming to ease supply concerns. Maybe others might disagree, but I think that sort of thing is essential to warfare and makes for a much more realistic and fun game.

[PHI-1618]

1) More diverse/playable factions. For example, Starcraft has 3 diverse factions, do you want more (4 or 5)?

No. I want StarCraft 2. That's all I want.

Or maybe just more slightly different races (a la AoE)?

'Slightly different' doesn't appeal to me. Either diversify them completely or make them the same and focus on other aspects of the game.

2) New resource system. Tired of having peons go around and chop wood? Suggest a different way of gatherin resources. (Perhaps one time events like "Sir, there has been a new forest discovered shall we harvest it for ten gold?"

For some odd reason, I keep thinking of the boardgame Settlers of Catan as to what I'd love to see in a RTS, something in which your domestic resources don't always produce while someone else's might. I find that very rewarding from a gameplay perspective.

4) Units different from eachother. Like chess, individual units are drastically different from eachother bringing a whole new dimension to the strategy.

Yes, but what's important is that each side's units aren't just different from each other but that they're difference also from side to side. In other words, just because there's a little, fast Jeep on one side's list of units doesn't mean you need an equivalent unit on the other side.

[Feigro]

Personally for the next gen RTS I'd rather not have RPG elements at all. The heroes are a cool feature, nicely executed by certain games, but personally I'm getting a bit tired of most games having hero units and/or lvling these days.

In my opinion, any kind of unit advancement, if you're going to have it, should be done by way of upgrades which cost/require resources.

I don't hate the system, it is rather enjoyable and cool in some games, however I think it's turning into quite the fad, and I'd like a game where one guy doesn't have an edge simply because he has more heroes than me.. or all of them are lvl 10, or whatever other examples.

I think http://www.supremecommander.com/ is going to be an excellent upcoming RTS that will be a nice break away from the standard RTS. Anyone who's played Total Annihilation will have an idea of some of the things you may expect from SupCom.

[stuck]

Personally for the next gen RTS I'd rather not have RPG elements at all. The heroes are a cool feature, nicely executed by certain games, but personally I'm getting a bit tired of most games having hero units and/or lvling these days.

In my opinion, any kind of unit advancement, if you're going to have it, should be done by way of upgrades which cost/require resources.

I don't hate the system, it is rather enjoyable and cool in some games, however I think it's turning into quite the fad, and I'd like a game where one guy doesn't have an edge simply because he has more heroes than me.. or all of them are lvl 10, or whatever other examples.

I think http://www.supremecommander.com/ is going to be an excellent upcoming RTS that will be a nice break away from the standard RTS. Anyone who's played Total Annihilation will have an idea of some of the things you may expect from SupCom.

I agree with the no RPG thing as well. It was cool when Warcraft did it, but it got old quickly. However, what I meant was a different way of making units. You start off with a blank slate and further refine them (RPG was the closest thng I could define it as).

That game looks like its going to be the next starcraft. I just hope the tactics will be advanced enough. (and the graphics requirements low enough, now that I think of it.)

[Fink]

I'm a big fan of the rock, paper, scissors approach

And I would like to see more tactics. Something besides running in with your heavily armored guys in front, and your range in back.
Maybe having troops having special abilities.

And I like massive battles, but it's hard to control your army when it's a blob of guys, and most of the time there is no real reason to break it up into something like formations. Give the player an incentive to use tactics and not just who can build the biggest army the fastest

And no more heroes

[Celdur]

you mean something like the total war games? it has scizzors and is really tactic based...in that game i can whin when my nmy has 2000 more guys than me...in a game like AoE or warcraft it al counts about who has the most

[Krakow Sam]

I voted a different resource system. I like the income system from total war but in the more 'convetional' RTSes its a total pain in the ass to have to have little serf archetypes trudging back and forth from a pile of rocks/gold/wood/futuristic gas. Its just not realistic.

[Celdur]

I voted a different resource system. I like the income system from total war but in the more 'convetional' RTSes its a total pain in the ass to have to have little serf archetypes trudging back and forth from a pile of rocks/gold/wood/futuristic gas. Its just not realistic.

and on top of that if the recources are depleted your screwed most of the time

[Feigro]

and on top of that if the recources are depleted your screwed most of the time

aaaaand on top of that those little bastards take up spots in my valuable population limit.

[syphonbyte]

I think RTW's battles are some of the more tactical ones in the RTS genre and actually involve real strategy rather than pumping out units like a madman to rush the enemy with, which is very nice. A game like that, but with economic aspects built in, is welcome. Ground Control is a little bit like that, if I recall correctly.

And no RPG elements, please. It's just stupid.

[Krakow Sam]

Total war is probably The RTS.
I dont think Ive ever got the same sense of satisfaction in totally wiping out an army three times the size of mine in any other game... certainly not age of empires.

[Celdur]

although its quite easy to defend yourself when you got some good archers, you just put evrything direct as defence and let the archers shoot some fire arrows and the morale of the nmy just FLYS down and the only thing u have to do if blow at them and the run away most of the time
BTW i cant wait for medievel total war 2

[Encrypted]

Other:

I would be happy with any system that doesnt favor the fastest clicker, or hot key user. 

Or punish you (usually by getting creamed ) because you didnt make building X at just the right time.

In other words, more ways to win than just a frantic clicking/button mashing  race.

[Fink]

Other:

I would be happy with any system that doesnt favor the fastest clicker, or hot key user. 

Or punish you (usually by getting creamed ) because you didnt make building X at just the right time.

In other words, more ways to win than just a frantic clicking/button mashing  race.

Thats why I like turn based better