   A RTS where you don't control the battle
  I don''t know if this has been implemented, but I think this would be cool and best done in 3D.The game is played as usual. However, during a big battle when the total units reaches certain number, the game will enter cinematic mode (like Warcraft3''s interludes), and you are not allowed to click-control a unit. The only thing you can do is to order certain groups to retreat, attack, hold fire, defense, etc, by using hotkeys or buttons. So it will be like in a movie.The camera will move intelligently according to your order. For example, you order archers to attack, camera will zoom in the commander carrying out the order, then it goes to the group of archers launching the attack. Then it goes back to the battle to see the result of the attack. Combined with skeletal animations, music, sound effects, and other cool animation tricks, I think this will make a battle a real battle.when there are only X units left, the game will go back to normal mode where you can click-control a unit. 
  Isn''t that similar to SpellForce? I read an article about it, and it sounds almost exactly like this. It''s an RTS/RPG. Not really a combination so much as a switch-back-and-forth. ;  Why not just make a regular RTS with a special replay mode that is very cinematic(could even make it move stuff around and not really be a replay as long as the result is the same so the rest of the game can be mostly accurate)? I''d hate to surrender control to an automatic camera, just because I''ve never seen one that didn''t make serious mistakes(like a 3rd person camera in an FPS blocking your view ahead with your character''s back or show me things from a perspective that made it very difficult to control the game). ;  I feel strongly that the camera should be manually controlled, and I don''t like the idea of switching gameplay modes in the middle of a game. Having indirect control over units is perfectly good, but then you should implement that fully.The game this reminds me of is that 3D wargame, I''ve forgotten the name. Came out 2-3 years ago... anyway it was turn-based, but you plan your turn while the enemy plans his and then you watch in cinematic real-time as both sides execute the commands they''d been issued.   ~CGameProgrammer( ); -- Post screenshots of your projects. There''s already 134 screenshot posts. ;  Actually, I like the idea of what you''re proposing.  In my opinion controlling your units in battle in an RTS has always been a chore, and you really have no chance to show your skill at the game (since it doesn''t take much skill).  The build order, and knowing when and what to attack are much more important... it would be nice to see a game which allowed you to give very general commands to units and have them behave intelligently. ;  I''ve thought of a similar idea before. It gets a lot more complicated the more you think about it. Firstly, switching between normal and cinematic modes needs to be very cleverly managed. What about a situation where two battles are happening simultaneously? Its very difficult to show two battles at the same time, unless you have a Director AI that understands simultaneous time cutting.Also, What happens if your opponent gives an order to his troops while your camera is zoomed in on your troops? you won''t see his order carried out.The "Eye of God" RTS view works well because you can see everything thats going on. It might look boring but people don''t have to worry about losing a battle because the camera was turned some stupid way or looking at some unit that is of no importance while important units are being attacked.Don''t get me wrong; It could work, and it would be cool if done properly. ;  A major flaw in the game described is that it goes against a very important element of game design. The whole idea is that the player has as much input as possible in the outcome of the game, has control and has important decisions to make. It is, in a way, the opposite of a movie.That is not to say that this would not work. TheBigJ made some good points, which is why I believe that the design would need to be altered while the general concept remains unchanged.Here is what I propose:The player is presented with details on the battle of which he is about to commence (maps, enemy stats and positions etc), be it attacking a fortified base or defending an important location. Then, the player must set up his force in a way that he sees fit. This is where the game is played. He can manage his troops by creating squads, platoons, companies etc and give individual units (that is, units as in a platoon of infantry, a squad of tanks and so on) pre-battle orders and attributes such as 'defend # platoon', 'hold position', 'attack enemy tanks first' etc. The player can issue such orders (including laying down paths for units to follow in assault-based missions) as well as define a units attack priority orders (tanks first, then defensive structures etc) and tactic to use such as flanking, providing suppressing fire for another more vulnerable and important unit. In order for this design to work, the player must be faced with a large variety of balanced decisions. If the following battle is lost, the player must think that had he ordered his other rifle platoon sitting idle on the flank to protect the mortar emplacements he might have won due to the extra shelling support for his men at the head of the assault.Obviously, the battle is then played out. The player has no control of his units in game, but that is ok because he was presented with difficult and dynamic decisions that will lead to his success or failure before hand. One thing that is very important is good individual AI - we don't want to force the player onto the edge of his seat shouting at his men in their stupidity, then sitting back and muttering 'screw this' as the battle unfolds in his opponents favour. The AI must be reliable. If the battle is lost, it must be the player's fault, and that much should be clear to the player.Perhaps this design might tie in well with a turn-based strategy?Edit: I totally agree that switching gameplay modes in-battle is a delicate idea.   [edited by - jack_1313 on February 15, 2004 4:38:32 AM];  Good luck but most people prefer to control all units in every battle!I played a game like Takudo or somehting like that where you do just that; attack, retreat and hold positions etc... ;  @Extrarius:Good point. People usually seeks entertainment when watching a replay, so creating a special cinematic replay will surely please them. I don''t play RTS a lot, the only RTS I have played is *craft games, and some old C&C games. *craft games replay is pretty much the same as playing it, the only difference is that you watch instead of play. The interface, camera, and everything is essentially the same. As a result, the entertainment you receive is not the same as watching a movie.quote:Original post by TheBigJ  Firstly, switching between normal and cinematic modes needs to be very cleverly managed. What about a situation where two battles are happening simultaneously? Its very difficult to show two battles at the same time, unless you have a Director AI that understands simultaneous time cutting.If the same player has two major battles at the same time, then yes, it is difficult to handle, but so as today''s RTS. Normally you do not want to split your force to two (but in real battles, splitting force is a good strategy to confuse your opponents). One possible solution is to allow players to switch back to normal mode at any time so he can go from one battle to another. But like you said, it needs a director AI to lead the other battle. Now, suppose that we already have a director AI implemented, don''t you think it would be great?quote:Also, What happens if your opponent gives an order to his troops while your camera is zoomed in on your troops? you won''t see his order carried out.Each player will have its own camera. What you see is not what your opponent see.quote:A major flaw in the game described is that it goes against a very important element of game design. The whole idea is that the player has as much input as possible in the outcome of the game, has control and has important decisions to make. It is, in a way, the opposite of a movie.Right, but this is exactly why I create this thread because playing Warcraft3 is not like watching LOTR. Maybe it''s best done in replays, but watching a replay isn''t entertaining either because you can''t actively involved in the battle, just like watching a movie. When you see your mistakes, you can''t do anything. Even worse, you did not know your mistakes while playing, and you will likely to make the same mistakes in the next game. When playing a fastpaced RTS game like Warcraft, instead of being entertained, you are stressed out when your reflects in pressing hotkeys and clicking mouse is slower than your opponents. And sometimes you can''t tell either why you lose the battle. You just lose. Even if you win, you do not know why you win, and you don''t feel like winning. Because for x seconds there during a battle, you focus your whole attention sending as much input as you can to the game. You basically has too much input in the game. You allocate very little time to analyze the battle, which is in fact the most very important element in leading a battle.quote:The player is presented with details on the battle of which he is about to commence (maps, enemy stats and positions etc), be it attacking a fortified base or defending an important location. Then, the player must set up his force in a way that he sees fit. This is where the game is played. He can manage his troops by creating squads, platoons, companies etc and give individual units (that is, units as in a platoon of infantry, a squad of tanks and so on) pre-battle orders and attributes such as ''defend # platoon'', ''hold position'', ''attack enemy tanks first'' etc. The player can issue such orders (including laying down paths for units to follow in assault-based missions) as well as define a units attack priority orders (tanks first, then defensive structures etc) and tactic to use such as flanking, providing suppressing fire for another more vulnerable and important unit. In order for this design to work, the player must be faced with a large variety of balanced decisions. If the following battle is lost, the player must think that had he ordered his other rifle platoon sitting idle on the flank to protect the mortar emplacements he might have won due to the extra shelling support for his men at the head of the assault.I was having the exact same idea. The problem lies in multiplayer mode. Usually you don''t have time to think about any strategy at all. And things like early rushes or units lost on its way (you remember sending 5 siege, but you don''t see them so you have to create 5 more sieges thus delaying your attack), and there are more other things. Basically it just doesn''t work for RTS. Like you said, maybe it''s better in turn-based, but seeing your other units "wait" isn''t realistic either.@CGameProgrammer:I haven''t played a turn-based like that before. I don''t know if it''s fun or not, but it doesn''t sound fun to me right now. You set your orders, then you sit and see if it works well. Then you set your orders again. It seems...repetitive. But I haven''t actually played that game, were you having fun playing it? ;quote:Original post by Wicked Arcade  Good luck but most people prefer to control all units in every battle!I played a game like Takudo or somehting like that where you do just that; attack, retreat and hold positions etc...   Right, I enjoy controlling every unit I have. However, you can''t control all units in battles, you will likely to have them in groups so they can be easily controlled. You want to control every unit when not in battles, but in battles they are on their own. 