NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could make an RTS what would it be like?

I would make one on my Nationstate or one that parodies Red Alert only the Soviets are replaced by the Westboro Baptist church so that the allies can kick their @$$. (of course I'd make the plot different from Red Alert)

If you could make an RTS what would it be like?

I would make one on my Nationstate or one that parodies Red Alert only the Soviets are replaced by the Westboro Baptist church so that the allies can kick their @$$. (of course I'd make the plot different from Red Alert)

I'd want a world sim the size of Civ where it takes an hour for the fastest unit to circle the globe. Sure, it'll take a supercomputer the likes of which humanity has only dreamed of to even run it, but it'd be AWESOME.

I'd want a world sim the size of Civ where it takes an hour for the fastest unit to circle the globe. Sure, it'll take a supercomputer the likes of which humanity has only dreamed of to even run it, but it'd be AWESOME.

Amen. If humanity had a computer like that I'd like an RTS that has objects that follow all the laws of science that we do in this universe, it'd be so realistic that it could actually happen in RL. :D

I would definitely do a RTS Civ game on a full globe, with a year taking, say, an hour and units moving as in C+C (i.e. no "moves"...actually, is that not the definition of RTS?). That would be awesome. Very awesome.

I would definitely do a RTS Civ game on a full globe, with a year taking, say, an hour and units moving as in C+C (i.e. no "moves"...actually, is that not the definition of RTS?). That would be awesome. Very awesome.

I was thinking more along the lines of Rise of Nations, where you actually have "territory" that grows, shrinks, and shifts sides based on the control of cities and settlements, over a huge map.

Space RTS's ftw. But the problem with RTS is, for lack of a better term, zerg rush. Every damn one of them.

I was thinking more along the lines of Rise of Nations, where you actually have "territory" that grows, shrinks, and shifts sides based on the control of cities and settlements, over a huge map.

Like Civ 3 onwards (actually, does Civ 4 have that?), except more advanced?

It would also need to have so many more countries. And countries that are born, rise, fall, and die. Instead of starting off with 8 and gradually working your way down to one, with no new ones coming in. And nationalist factions throughout your empire etc, and different religions wanting independent states etc.

That would be awesome.

Real Time Strategy! Bah!

I remember when there was no such thing as 'real time strategy'. Heck, we took turns sending our little fighting men against our mortal enemies. And we liked it! None of this everything's gotta be done at the same time mentality! No Sir! We agonizingly deliberated over every move, every possible consequence was examined! We had decorum. Now it's all 'Now! Now! Now!'. Really, tis distasteful.

*pines for the days of Nobunaga's Ambition*

Like Civ 3 onwards (actually, does Civ 4 have that?), except more advanced?

It would also need to have so many more countries. And countries that are born, rise, fall, and die. Instead of starting off with 8 and gradually working your way down to one, with no new ones coming in. And nationalist factions throughout your empire etc, and different religions wanting independent states etc.

That would be awesome.

Go to CivFanatics forum and check out the 'Rise and Fall of Civilizations' Mod. That's pretty damn close.

Like Civ 3 onwards (actually, does Civ 4 have that?), except more advanced?

It would also need to have so many more countries. And countries that are born, rise, fall, and die. Instead of starting off with 8 and gradually working your way down to one, with no new ones coming in. And nationalist factions throughout your empire etc, and different religions wanting independent states etc.

That would be awesome.

Right. Now imagine all of that, but Real Time. :D

It would also need to have so many more countries. And countries that are born, rise, fall, and die. Instead of starting off with 8 and gradually working your way down to one, with no new ones coming in. And nationalist factions throughout your empire etc, and different religions wanting independent states etc.
.

Bringing back a more robust version of the civil war feature in Civ 2 would be perfect as well.

Decaying nations (debt, anarchy, losing cities, etc.) could risk splitting up in to various factions, each of which would become a new nation based off of the original, and new nations could be randomly formed in unsettled areas of the map. Cities with a single religion could have the risk of breaking away from their controllers and combining in to a new religious state (think the Caliphate or the Papal States) that is comprised of parts of multiple nations that share similar beliefs, and so on.

Bringing back a more robust version of the civil war feature in Civ 2 would be perfect as well.

Decaying nations (debt, anarchy, losing cities, etc.) could risk splitting up in to various factions, each of which would become a new nation based off of the original, and new nations could be randomly formed in unsettled areas of the map. Cities with a single religion could have the risk of breaking away from their controllers and combining in to a new religious state (think the Caliphate or the Papal States) that is comprised of parts of multiple nations that share similar beliefs, and so on.

Again, CivFanatics forum had a mod to do exactly that. Revolution was largely based off of happiness, or distance from the Capital. Also, minor nations could suddenly sprout from barbarian cities. Neat stuff.

Bringing back a more robust version of the civil war feature in Civ 2 would be perfect as well.

Decaying nations (debt, anarchy, losing cities, etc.) could risk splitting up in to various factions, each of which would become a new nation based off of the original, and new nations could be randomly formed in unsettled areas of the map. Cities with a single religion could have the risk of breaking away from their controllers and combining in to a new religious state (think the Caliphate or the Papal States) that is comprised of parts of multiple nations that share similar beliefs, and so on.

And now imagine if you could play cooperatively, and have multiple players play as governors of cities in a single nation, against a computerized AI that controls the other nations.

The problem with all the Civ references is that unless Civ 3 and before have vastly different gameplay than Civ 4, the Civilization series is not a real-time strategy. It is turn based strategy.

Space RTS's ftw. But the problem with RTS is, for lack of a better term, zerg rush. Every damn one of them.

Countering zerg rush is easy if you know how to do it; the only time it's really a problem is if the rush unit itself or the counters to it are imbalanced. That can be fixed pretty easily, though. However, using and/or countering rushes are a part of the strategy itself; hell, the Blitzkrieg and the strategies used by the Huns and Mongols are pretty much IRL zerg rushes.

The problem with all the Civ references is that unless Civ 3 and before have vastly different gameplay than Civ 4, the Civilization series is not a real-time strategy. It is turn based strategy.

You can play Civ 4 multiplayer in a 'real-time' mode. Essentially it's turn-based with time limits and simultaneous resolution. Or something.

Countering zerg rush is easy if you know how to do it; the only time it's really a problem is if the rush unit itself or the counters to it are imbalanced. That can be fixed pretty easily, though. However, using and/or countering rushes are a part of the strategy itself; hell, the Blitzkrieg and the strategies used by the Huns and Mongols are pretty much IRL zerg rushes.

Ever played Cataclysm? You don't really stop 150 Acolytes with a 300 missile load, or 150 MTVs on suicide missions with uber payloads.

You can play Civ 4 multiplayer in a 'real-time' mode. Essentially it's turn-based with time limits and simultaneous resolution. Or something.
Turn-based with time limits is turn based. The difference is too significant to remove with "time-limits." Even a time-limit of 1 means it is still turn based - 1 person is going, 1, or more, isn't. Real time is real time, every player acting simultaneously.

Somewhere between Spore, Halo Wars, and Rise of Nations lies the perfect RTS game...

The problem with all the Civ references is that unless Civ 3 and before have vastly different gameplay than Civ 4, the Civilization series is not a real-time strategy. It is turn based strategy.

Yeah, we know. We're talking about taking some gameplay elements from Civ, or the ideas behind them anyway, and putting them into an RTS game.

And now imagine if you could play cooperatively, and have multiple players play as governors of cities in a single nation, against a computerized AI that controls the other nations.

Wow, that would be awesome. It would add some real-world politics to the game; imagine a crucial economic or military city (or region) refusing to support the leader's declaration of war because of economic reasons, and even seceding if they don't like the way the country is going.

Yeah, we know. We're talking about taking some gameplay elements from Civ, or the ideas behind them anyway, and putting them into an RTS game.
What elements?

Wow, that would be awesome. It would add some real-world politics to the game; imagine a crucial economic or military city (or region) refusing to support the leader's declaration of war because of economic reasons, and even seceding if they don't like the way the country is going.

Yeah, that would be awesome.

The posts in this thread (from roughly where I started talking about rising and falling nations) outline what could be a cracking RTS, if it was done properly.

Ever played Cataclysm? You don't really stop 150 Acolytes with a 300 missile load, or 150 MTVs on suicide missions with uber payloads.

Nope...sounds like it sucks to be in that situation, though.

Turn-based with time limits is turn based. The difference is too significant to remove with "time-limits." Even a time-limit of 1 means it is still turn based - 1 person is going, 1, or more, isn't. Real time is real time, every player acting simultaneously.

Wouldn't it be possible to break actions in to separate turns but have all players take their turns simultaneously, and then change turns only when all players are ready to do so?

Wow, that would be awesome. It would add some real-world politics to the game; imagine a crucial economic or military city (or region) refusing to support the leader's declaration of war because of economic reasons, and even seceding if they don't like the way the country is going.

Aye. It would add a totally new and completely unexplored aspect to the game. God I pray for a game like to this to come out before I die, heh.

What elements?

Erm...read the thread? There have been lots of references to Civ, none of the ideas in them preclude an RTS. In fact, I think they would potentially work better in one.

Aye. It would add a totally new and completely unexplored aspect to the game. God I pray for a game like to this to come out before I die, heh.

Chances are, somebody's working on it; I can't mention any off the top of my head, but given that it's such a good idea there has to be some developer interest out there. The RTS genre is in a good position for another leap of innovation, so I'm pretty confident something's going to be coming out in the near future.

Nope...sounds like it sucks to be in that situation, though.
Yeah, your pretty fucked if that happens. Unless maybe if your the beast and can take down a few of them with infection beams. But you would still take massive damage. Though I personally like de-cloaking a dozen ion array frigates around the enemy.


Wouldn't it be possible to break actions in to separate turns but have all players take their turns simultaneously, and then change turns only when all players are ready to do so?
No?

Erm...read the thread? There have been lots of references to Civ, none of the ideas in them preclude an RTS. In fact, I think they would potentially work better in one.
Summarize?

Wow, that would be awesome. It would add some real-world politics to the game; imagine a crucial economic or military city (or region) refusing to support the leader's declaration of war because of economic reasons, and even seceding if they don't like the way the country is going.

Something like that is used (implosion of empire) in Rhys and Fall of civilization mod for Civ IV warlords.

Summarize?

Here are the general ideas that were mentioned in the context of importing from Civ

- civilisations
- growing and shrinking territory based on control of settlements and influence
- civil war feature from Civ 2, but better

What of those is not possible in an RTS?

Something like that is used (implosion of empire) in Rhys and Fall of civilization mod for Civ IV warlords.

Is good too. I espescially like the culturally adaptable city-naming that the map uses. I'm wishing that was used in more of the mods.

Is good too. I espescially like the culturally adaptable city-naming that the map uses. I'm wishing that was used in more of the mods.

How do you mean culturally adaptable city naming?

Oh yeah, is it for Civ 3 or 4?

How do you mean culturally adaptable city naming?

Oh yeah, is it for Civ 3 or 4?

Civ IV.

In this particular mod, the name of the city you create (or capture) changes depending on your civilization and the exact spot you colonize. So Roma may be founded by the Romans, but it becomes Rome the moment it is conquered by the english.

Areas that weren't historically occupied by a specific civ then go down a list of historically accurate names that are true to the language of the civ (as opposed to the anglicized ones.)

Civ IV.

In this particular mod, the name of the city you create (or capture) changes depending on your civilization and the exact spot you colonize. So Roma may be founded by the Romans, but it becomes Rome the moment it is conquered by the english.

Areas that weren't historically occupied by a specific civ then go down a list of historically accurate names that are true to the language of the civ (as opposed to the anglicized ones.)

That sounds pretty cool.

So if I start a city on the east coast of Ireland it would get called Dublin, not like normal where it just works down the list and gives it the next name?

That sounds pretty cool.

So if I start a city on the east coast of Ireland it would get called Dublin, not like normal where it just works down the list and gives it the next name?

If you were playing England, that's exactly what would happen. Although I believe Ireland starts off as a barbarian civ, and it has a more Celtic name. However, if you're playing a civ other than England, the city would keep it's original name.

However, if there was no city on Ireland, and it was founded by, let's say the Mongols, then it would choose a mongol city out of the list for the spot, since the mongols didn't get around to founding a city in Ireland.

If you were playing England, that's exactly what would happen. Although I believe Ireland starts off as a barbarian civ, and it has a more Celtic name. However, if you're playing a civ other than England, the city would keep it's original name.

However, if there was no city on Ireland, and it was founded by, let's say the Mongols, then it would choose a mongol city out of the list for the spot, since the mongols didn't get around to founding a city in Ireland.

Dublin was founded by the Vikings, but I'll let the English thing go :p

It sounds like a very cool mod. Now to get Civ IV...

Dublin was founded by the Vikings, but I'll let the English thing go :p

It sounds like a very cool mod. Now to get Civ IV...

I just meant the anglicized name. Haven't played the mod in some time.

Civ IV is definitely worth it. And the mod community is simply awesome.

Here are the general ideas that were mentioned in the context of importing from Civ

- civilisations
- growing and shrinking territory based on control of settlements and influence
- civil war feature from Civ 2, but better

What of those is not possible in an RTS?

So you just want a Gov Sim under the guise of an RTS?

If you could make an RTS what would it be like?

StarCraft 2

:D

Mine would have very detailed naval units. And would take a supercomputer to play.

My ideal RTS would have virtually nothing in common with Civ et. al., even though I do like those games as well.;) In my case, I'd prefer a staff-based RTS where you only control things (whole services and higher formations, logistics, deployment, rules of engagement and/or DEFCON) that general-staff types can actually control IRL. It would be completely different from "click this unit to attack that building;" rather, you'd set strategic and tactical policy using the appropriate buttons or pull-down menus, then click on the acting force's base and draw out its route to the enemy region or city you're interested in, then set what it's engagment rules (fire at will, fire if fired upon, hold fire, &c) and mission objectives (patrol, recon-in-force, ASW, &c) will be once deployed, and make sure its supply lines are protected by actual other forces (driving home how rarely more than 2/3 of a military can deploy against one target, since supply lines NEED garrisoning somehow).
The two ways to win directly would be to beat the enemy back with sheer firepower (attrition), or cut their supply/command lines with minimal or no engagment (maneuver), or (most likely) a combination of these; all until their government capitulates. Victory could also come from a coup or revolt in the enemy's camp, but the same could also happen to you if your war costs (not building so much as simple funding, since this would be modern-era) wreck the economy or your objectives become unpopular; giving you a counterinsurgency nightmare to complement your conventionally-induced headaches.:D:p In short, this game would allow players to get their General Staff on, while still educating them on the practical limitations of such high command due to the sheer scale of responsibility involved. And yes, custom maps and countries could be generated, with the map interface looking very slickly digital ideally (something like the Ace Combat in-game world maps, say, if this were done by Bandai-Namco).

It would be like Spore.

A series of RTS games based on counter factual historical scenarios, the first of which features WWII fought between the United States and the Confederate States, with involvement by the Germans and Japanese on behalf of the Axis, the British, French, and Mexicans on behalf of the Allies, and the Soviets as the "neutrals" that get involved later.

I would definitely do a RTS Civ game on a full globe, with a year taking, say, an hour and units moving as in C+C (i.e. no "moves"...actually, is that not the definition of RTS?). That would be awesome. Very awesome.

I was thinking more along the lines of Rise of Nations, where you actually have "territory" that grows, shrinks, and shifts sides based on the control of cities and settlements, over a huge map.

Like Civ 3 onwards (actually, does Civ 4 have that?), except more advanced?

It would also need to have so many more countries. And countries that are born, rise, fall, and die. Instead of starting off with 8 and gradually working your way down to one, with no new ones coming in. And nationalist factions throughout your empire etc, and different religions wanting independent states etc.

That would be awesome.

Right. Now imagine all of that, but Real Time. :D

Bringing back a more robust version of the civil war feature in Civ 2 would be perfect as well.

Decaying nations (debt, anarchy, losing cities, etc.) could risk splitting up in to various factions, each of which would become a new nation based off of the original, and new nations could be randomly formed in unsettled areas of the map. Cities with a single religion could have the risk of breaking away from their controllers and combining in to a new religious state (think the Caliphate or the Papal States) that is comprised of parts of multiple nations that share similar beliefs, and so on.

Yeah, we know. We're talking about taking some gameplay elements from Civ, or the ideas behind them anyway, and putting them into an RTS game.

Guys, similar things have been done! Try Hearts of Iron 2, Europa Universalis 3, or Victoria.

They're not on the level that shows individual units fighting or gloriously rendered 3D cities, but current technology doesn't allow that (with time, perhaps...). The mechanics, however, are that of a real-time grand strategy game.


Wow, that would be awesome. It would add some real-world politics to the game; imagine a crucial economic or military city (or region) refusing to support the leader's declaration of war because of economic reasons, and even seceding if they don't like the way the country is going.

Chances are, somebody's working on it; I can't mention any off the top of my head, but given that it's such a good idea there has to be some developer interest out there. The RTS genre is in a good position for another leap of innovation, so I'm pretty confident something's going to be coming out in the near future.

Re: the "governors" idea, Crusader Kings (by the same developer as the above titles) offers the same - You can play as a count, duke, or king. As one of the former two, you most likely owe your allegiance to a king (but not always). You can be loyal or treasonous, attempting to claim the throne for yourself. As king, however, you have to manage your vassals and make sure that they stay loyal - if they don't, like you said, you may find one of your most powerful dukes betraying you and siding with the enemy the moment a major power declares war upon you.

It's not as good as the above titles, in my opinion, but does introduce that novel idea.

A Korean War game, with elements from Company of Heroes. But the maps should be bigger and you should be able to command more units.

not having played EU3....

for a variety of reasons I'd actually recommend Hearts of Iron 2, Doomsday and Crusader Kings over paradox's other games.

they were made later, and as a result are some of the most polished. other people prefer other games.

doomsday actually has a decent manual and tutorial, too, so you can actually acclimatise yourself to the genre. [most of paradoxes games are... lacking.. in this area]

there's a recent expansion for Victoria that allows you to export your game into doomsday, too.


Doomsday's one of the few games i keep coming back to.

my ideal RTS... humm, that's a puzzle. AoE3 has a nice feel to it, but doesn't really offer much appart from that to put into such a game.

the ability to actually custom build units [see Galactic Civilisations 2, or Alpha Centauri] is a must.

the ability to work on the global scale would be very nice.

"or" gates in the tech tree, and NO technologies that you Must research. [choke points]

doomsday style tech sharing... where it only shared blueprints, which accelerated your reserch drastically, but didn't just randomly give you free tech.

the ability to play at the grand stratagy level... and [though having both wouldn't work in multi player, you'd have to disable one or the other] the ability to lead the army you deployed to a particular battlefield in an aoe-style combat [only without all the random buildings and stuff. you've got what you've got, after all.]

ideally it'd go from, oh.. middle ages or earlier, to PMT type tech.

the ability to construct your Own doctrine, based on various factors, and have it have an effect.

a costomisable "govenrment" ala doomsday etc.

no distinguishably seperate difference between 'sides' appart from where they started, which would be random.

have what resources you can and can't get affect techs, not just the other way around...


it'd end up rediculously complex and customisable. Spore is DEFINATLY headed in the right direction :D

not having played EU3....

for a variety of reasons I'd actually recommend Hearts of Iron 2, Doomsday and Crusader Kings over paradox's other games.

they were made later, and as a result are some of the most polished. other people prefer other games.

doomsday actually has a decent manual and tutorial, too, so you can actually acclimatise yourself to the genre. [most of paradoxes games are... lacking.. in this area]

there's a recent expansion for Victoria that allows you to export your game into doomsday, too.

Without looking it up to verify that, wasn't CK made before Victoria? In any case, in some aspects I prefer Victoria - particularly with the expansion - over the others purely because it's the most "deep" game economically and politically. HOI2 is fantastic, but it's primarily a wargame, whereas it's possible to become the dominant power in Vic by other means.

But then, the depth of Victoria and its really steep learning curve is why it wasn't nearly as successful as Paradox' other games, so i'm pretty alone in that regard. I expect Vetalia might get a kick out of it though.

meh, i don't know if CK or Viccy was made first...

but viccy certainly FEELS older. also, CK has had about 5 [MAJOR] patches since it came out. heh.

A Total War that spans multiple ages, or a Rise of Nations II with unique nations.

A Total War that spans multiple ages, or a Rise of Nations II with unique nations.

Total War i can play again :D