Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dark RevenantX on December 16, 2005, 08:33:28 pm
-
For a long time, I was disappointed by the RTS games (not to mention the sudden blast of WW2 games) that didn't live up to what they were meant to be. We need more RTS games with the quality and lasting value that Starcraft had. Some people are STILL playing it en masse, even though it's older than FS2. A lot of RTS games lately have been below the bar set for them. I also got bored of all these WW2 games coming out, mainly because most of them aren't all that good. The WW2 RTS games look like crap and or are WAY too realistic (how am I supposed to know how long that soldier's gun barrel is?)
The upcoming Feburary 1 release, Company of Heroes, hopefully will be the messiah of RTS, and possibly WW2 games. The game looks like a detailed FPS with it's new Esscence engine with some Havok 3.0 physics features.
(http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/345/reviews/927618_20051212_screen001.jpg)(http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/2005/132/927618_20050513_screen002.jpg)
The basic soldiers have about 2,000 animations. They have animations for just about every mood and stance imaginable. They aren't just mindless pawns on a virtual battlefield, they are "real" soldiers fighting for you in a "real" little town somewhere in France. Battles have a good blend between realism and gameplay. If something doesn't seem realistic in the game, it would probably be because it helps the gameplay. Also, the environment is the most destructable ever created. EVERYTHING can be destroyed. Even the little barrels on the ground can be blasted to pieces. The little piano on the street can lend your troops some cover for a small while. Demolition people can throw explosives into a building. When the explosives explode, debris go flying, and the building loses a large chunk of itself. If you hit an already weakened building or hit a very key part in it, it would also collapse. Buildings realalisticly collapse at appropriate times. The building damage is not pre-determened. The debris don't sink into the ground by most games. Every bit of destroyed stuff lends some permenent cover for your soldiers. Note the lower image. Before the battle started, everything in that scene was in perfect shape. Also, tanks have some real power. Not only do they level buildings with their cannons, they can drive through walls and other structures. Have a pesky wall in the way? Drive through it! Artillery strikes are actually deadly in this game. You can lose most of your company when you get hit without cover. The physics engine handles destruction well. If the town doesn't look like it went through a war, then you did something very, very wrong.
There is a 12 min gameplay video of it here (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/companyofheroes/media.html?mode=trailers) (the top video)
I am looking foward to Company of Heroes, it hope it will be a new standard for RTS games.
How do you feel about it?
-
1/ Have you played 'Blitzkrieg 2', which I find to be one of the best WWII RTS games i've ever played.
2/ This looks pretty good, but doesn't appeal to me, as I like to command vast, vast, vast legions of troops... vast. Hence, I find bigger games like 'Rise of Nations' or the upcoming 'Supreme Commander' (Spiritual sequel to the 'Total Annihilation' games') much more appealing to me, you should check 'em out.
This does look pretty damn good however, and i'm sure it'll be so good, it won't even begin to run on my system. Hooray!
-
It can be as visually and physically impressive as possible.
But if its not as balanced or fun to play as Starcraft, then it wont matter at all.
-
Homeworld was the most innovative RTS I've played, and the most fun :) But this does look interesting :)
-
Jesus Christ! That looks insane! Those are every bit as good as COD1 graphics, but it's RTS? That's really really insane. I would buy this for the sole purpose of learning to play strategy games. That looks INCREDIBLE. Good find.
-
It's about time some of those advanced physics and graphics systems from fps games trickled down to the rts department. This looks to be awesome :cool:
That said, homeworld is still better :nod:
-
So it's like Heroes of World War 2? Only bigger
-
second shot makes it look like WWI
-
what, with a Tiger Tank ?
-
I wont be interested until I hear that from someone who actually played it... Regarding the physics; this isn't exactly the first game ever to boast how "interactive" the world is and how realisticly it blows to pieces. Thought Silent Storm and AoE3 have pretty groovy physics, I'll still wait for the critics before I pee in my pants for this game.
Assuming the hype is correct (about details&physics&etc) it will be insanely stressful for hardware to be calculating all that.
Furthermore; I am really getting tired of WWII games (exept those that involve Finland :D ). There are plenty of wars where people have died! Could I have WWI next, please? Or Zulu wars? How about a first person shooter about the american war of independence? Or controlling marine boarding party in the Earth-Mars war?
-
Yay, WW2!
I don't really care about graphics in an RTS game, to be honest. Not beyond a certain degree, i.e. the point where you can depict a decent number of soldiers/tanks/etc that look like 'wot they is meant to be'. So, like, HDR on RTS', or hyper real water ripples - not the future of RTS games IMO.
Obviously, physics affecting the gameplay is another issue.
Although WW1; not a good setting for RTS. Dig a trench. Sit. Get trenchfoot. Suicidal charge. Back to trench. Sit. Get trenchfoot. etc.
-
So it's like Heroes of World War 2? Only bigger
If it's even remotely as good as Heroes, I'll be byuing it. Plus I can enjoy all the great eyecandy with my upcoming new computer ;7
-
Total War Series> all other terrestrial RTS's
-
Micromanagement Nightmare
The reason I'm fed up with most RTS games recently made is that they don't make any more strategic/tactical sense then Dune 2 did.
Granted the graphics are pretty, and there's 'physics'; but beyond that it's same old...same old.
I'm looking for some sort of initiative like Point Defense Systems for Homeworld 2.
One word summarizes the problem: micromanagement. Ergo, your units are often way too dumb.
Starcraft was excelent because it realised this limitation and taylored everything to match it - so you hadn't had that may units, but they could be played out in unique manners - the best parallel is chess.
Homeworld also hit a soft-spot, though the game invariable deteoriated into frigate/capshipt face-offs as once again only those units were really suited to the mircomanaging interface. (Homeworld 2 took the right step with its strikegroups, but failed to carry it through.)
If they're ever to make a 'realistic' tactical/strategy game, lieutenant AIs will have to be introduced into the game AI that allow the player to efficiently manage his forces. Anything else will be a cleverly disguised game of chess.
I see two apporaches to the problem:
a) Battlefield commander - Battlezone did the best damn solution up to date, it was indeed way ahead its time. Operation Flashpoint also did it well, and could have been a lot more strategic with a more innovative interface.
Simply put you abolish the 'god-view' with all its management problems and stick the player in the field of battle and thereby limit his influence and or information-flow to a realitic and humanly manageable level. // This method is taylored for squad level / individual unit based command.
b) Map-commander. You recieve reports and or data-feeds from various sources. The battlefield before your eyes is a mere representation built up from all those sources. // This method is taylored for commanding companies and squads.
Both approaches demand a battle AI that makes decisions on its own, and reacts to the its situation with an active stance. Right now battlefield AI is restricted to trigger fringer reflexes along with the blind hound routine.
It's about time to realise that the new command system will have to abandon the mere point-and-click apporach.
setting up proper scouting sweeps, breakthroughs or just a plain defensive net is impossible if you have to lead each and every unit by the hand.
Strategy not mere Tactics!
Recently I found an old gem - War Inc. The game had a really ****ty combat AI and a poor interface; however its two-phase apporach is the best damn thing since X-Com.
There is a strategic layer, where you move your strikeforces between objectives and your base - once you merge with an objective point (place to raze, recapture ect.) or a hostile force the game drops down to a C&C-Clone tactical map to resolve the battle.
This simple innovation immersly changed the way I had to fight battles. No resourcing, no manufacturing, only units, ammo and a situation I had to crack with the assets I brought - or call it a day and retreat, which was often the clever thing to do.
When you have this 'long-term' view and always keep the big picture in your head; completly abolishes the conventional war-of-total-annihilation that plagues all the Real-Time-Tactical games played nowadays.
There's no such thing as big-enough battlefield. However smacking everything into the same map won't do any good. It's time we realise the difference between stategic and tactical view.
This two-phase aproach is very rudimentary, but it's about time something similar is done.
I don't have high hopes but Battlefield Commander promises to deliver in the second category. I just hope the developer have the sensibility to ressurect the AI from TA and upgrade it to new standards.
-
There's already at least one game with that sort of segemented approach. It's a homeware (for lack of the proper term) US Civil War battle game. Basically you can play a number of fixed 'roles' with varying ability to micromanage. For example, as a general you can order a unit to simply hold a ridge, but not micromanage them (such as their exact positions). Or, you can be the commander of the unit that holds said ridge and micromanage that defense; but it's an AI general that will give you orders.
Apparently it's pretty cool and works really well in action.
-
They aren't just mindless pawns on a virtual battlefield, they are "real" soldiers fighting for you in a "real" little town somewhere in France.
They said that about that Lord of the Rings game, Battle for Middle Earth, too. I never saw it (I mean I played the game, but never saw the "real" soldiers aspect they touted). Also, if it's being fought in a little town somewhere in France, does that mean that the only sides are Americans and UK vs. the Germans and Italians? :p
Even the little barrels on the ground can be blasted to pieces.
Haven't little barrels on the ground always been blastable? In fact, I can think of numerous RTS games where the little barrels on the ground are the only environmental element that can be "blasted". :p
Sorry, couldn't help myself. :p
That said, it does look good. :yes:
-
what, with a Tiger Tank ?
you're thinking of WW2.
anyway, i like the way this looks. damaged buildings and the like, woo!
@ Mefustae: Blitzkreig 2 brings GeForce 7800GTX cards to the teens of FPS. :shaking:
-
I'd probably have a coronary trying to play that. I played the demo to Earth 2160 and just about had a heart-attack not knowing what all the rest of my units were doing. I seriously was white-knuckling my mouse when I started to get a tension headache from playing the game. :eek: New RTS's are not for me, regardless of how good they look. It sure is a nice advancement of technology though, and I think it's pretty awesome. I just dont have the "micro" for these games anymore.
-
i'll be happy when they manage to combine the gameplay of Homeworld with the Universe building Elements of Imperium Galactica, and have a program that allows you to create your own units/weapons/buildings/resources etc and make them available to download (i.e. Similar to the Mod support of UT, but easier to Mod) that actually ships with the game and doesn't require a Phd in programming to use ;)
That way you could start on a planet, build up that planet and then slowly crawl across the Galaxy like IG or MoO, have massive interfleet battles with custom researched/designed weapons, similar to Homeworld. Anyone who's played Hegemonia will know what it shouldn't play like ;)
THEN I will be happy ;)
-
i'll be happy when they manage to combine the gameplay of Homeworld with the Universe building Elements of Imperium Galactica, and have a program that allows you to create your own units/weapons/buildings/resources etc and make them available to download (i.e. Similar to the Mod support of UT, but easier to Mod) that actually ships with the game and doesn't require a Phd in programming to use ;)
That way you could start on a planet, build up that planet and then slowly crawl across the Galaxy like IG or MoO, have massive interfleet battles with custom researched/designed weapons, similar to Homeworld. Anyone who's played Hegemonia will know what it shouldn't play like ;)
THEN I will be happy ;)
you and me botzh..heheh
come to think of it, I do recall a RTS game with excellent AI - what was it called (lost tje Cd, but it was a damn good game9.. I think Conflict: something.
It was a space rts where you built vast fleets and each star system was a separate map, connected to other system via jump-points. and you played on all of htem at once!
you could build admirals shuttles and assign thme to you battlegroups and they would lead it, and do they job well.
Once an admiral led the battlegroup, razed an enemy base with minimal losses and returen to ressuply and repair - I couldn't belive it..
lol
-
i'll be happy when they manage to combine the gameplay of Homeworld with the Universe building Elements of Imperium Galactica, and have a program that allows you to create your own units/weapons/buildings/resources etc and make them available to download (i.e. Similar to the Mod support of UT, but easier to Mod) that actually ships with the game and doesn't require a Phd in programming to use ;)
That way you could start on a planet, build up that planet and then slowly crawl across the Galaxy like IG or MoO, have massive interfleet battles with custom researched/designed weapons, similar to Homeworld. Anyone who's played Hegemonia will know what it shouldn't play like ;)
THEN I will be happy ;)
The game will utterly fail - that was Imperium Galactica 2.
Don't get me wrong - the concept is very good, you just can't manage it all.
If you want smg. like that that's still somewhat manageable download Reunion from HOTU. Made by the same team with all the concepts you quoted.
Hegemonia is actually a very good game - Digital Reality finally realised the inteface limitations - and focused on the strategy / tactical aspects of the game. You may not have liked it, but the general consensus is, it *is* a good tactical game if you're willing to learn the ropes. Ergo learn how to do tactice/strategic stuff - it's like chess. Knowing the rules is by no means enough, there's a myriad things to know about the game to bring the best out of it.
For the concept to suceed with a sensible tactical battlefield you will need Lieutenant AIs, that you can assign to specific tasks, and governors to control your planets. Otherwise it simply won't work.
-
Actually, I'd even include production and trade between worlds as an influencing factor in such a game, as well as combat. I don't think it 'can't' be done, after all, Homeworld has been done, and so has MoO etc, so the two facilities are there.
I think the micromanaging was taken overboard in MoO and IG though, most leaders don't set, for example, the amount of money for a particular research, that's why they hire Cabinet ministers, who hire advisers, who hire consultant scientists etc, so whilst you could choose the general direction of research, you could allow race characteristics to define what they actually discover, it means a massive tech tree but you would only travel down 'twigs', some races simply will not think up certain ideas (the rules change for captured stuff).
As for fleet combat, theres no real reason why, using graphics at homeworld level, it could not have supported much larger fleets on modern computers, indeed, Nexus:The Jupiter Incident was actually the graphics engine for exactly that, for Imperium Galactica. So theres no real reason why combat could not be represented in such a way, without resource gathering, but with asteroids and other navigational elements. You'd have to vary the game pace on the events at hand, if you want high levels of fleet-strategy, then you need micromanagement at the cost of combat content, what I'm thinking of though limits the players control over a planets infrastructure, but still allows enough freedom to choose the direction of play, the content of your fleets and the direction of research.
It also means that new modded weapons and guns can be simply 'glued' onto the current tech trees, so only certain race-types could research certain hulls etc.
Yes, I've thought about this a lot ;)
-
There's nothing that can't be done without a bit of hard work and lateral thinking.
Except Duke Nukem Forever. That ****s doomed, man.
-
The 'Forever' was as much a policy statement as part of the name ;)
-
come to think of it, I do recall a RTS game with excellent AI - what was it called (lost tje Cd, but it was a damn good game9.. I think Conflict: something.
Conflict: Frontier Wars. That game was hilarious thanks to the various silly things certain characters said.
'The bear has left the woods!'
-
I'd probably have a coronary trying to play that. I played the demo to Earth 2160 and just about had a heart-attack not knowing what all the rest of my units were doing. I seriously was white-knuckling my mouse when I started to get a tension headache from playing the game. :eek: New RTS's are not for me, regardless of how good they look. It sure is a nice advancement of technology though, and I think it's pretty awesome. I just dont have the "micro" for these games anymore.
*cough*wuss*cough* :p
these games are exactly what i look for in RTS games. i just don't have the friggin' hardware for them. :hopping:
-
Actually, I'd even include production and trade between worlds as an influencing factor in such a game, as well as combat. I don't think it 'can't' be done, after all, Homeworld has been done, and so has MoO etc, so the two facilities are there.
I think the micromanaging was taken overboard in MoO and IG though, most leaders don't set, for example, the amount of money for a particular research, that's why they hire Cabinet ministers, who hire advisers, who hire consultant scientists etc, so whilst you could choose the general direction of research, you could allow race characteristics to define what they actually discover, it means a massive tech tree but you would only travel down 'twigs', some races simply will not think up certain ideas (the rules change for captured stuff).
As for fleet combat, theres no real reason why, using graphics at homeworld level, it could not have supported much larger fleets on modern computers, indeed, Nexus:The Jupiter Incident was actually the graphics engine for exactly that, for Imperium Galactica. So theres no real reason why combat could not be represented in such a way, without resource gathering, but with asteroids and other navigational elements. You'd have to vary the game pace on the events at hand, if you want high levels of fleet-strategy, then you need micromanagement at the cost of combat content, what I'm thinking of though limits the players control over a planets infrastructure, but still allows enough freedom to choose the direction of play, the content of your fleets and the direction of research.
It also means that new modded weapons and guns can be simply 'glued' onto the current tech trees, so only certain race-types could research certain hulls etc.
Yes, I've thought about this a lot ;)
My main concen is not with hardware or micromanagement issues.
I don't say it can't be done - it can't be done how RTS-es are made nowadays.
My main gripe is the lack of a capable Lieutenant AI and a Admiral/General level interface.
The later is even more important - it's time we forgot 'simple' point and click.
Whay your job should consist of is assigning objectives than handing them out to different battlegroups to achieve them. The actual gameplay part would be the variations on said objectives.
Right now only two objectives exist: move/advance/flee in terror & attack/capture/annihilate.
Nothing complicated, nothing that would grant you the flexibility needed for a true strategy, you're bogged down with tactical difficulties and tactics are nothing more than exploiting certain map features and herding your troops to said feature like sheep and keeping them from going off on their own.
In a true RTS I don't want to deal with that. If I gave an objective to my colonel - take the ridge North of town Vandero, purge out resistance, dig in and set up a perimeter than that's all I should have to do.
The AI would first conduct scouting on its own, asses the enemy's troops and installations - crossreference it with earlier Intel reports and send me a report of their own they differ too much, and warn me if they believe the objective far fetched (too much predicted losses, concerns over resuplying and/or lack of supply lines to evacuate) - then it would devise its own objectives (attack these troops, harrass those, sneak there....ect.) than hands said objectives down to his Lieutenants...and so on until it's just a grunt with the objective of taking that damn bridge.
The 'game' on the players part comes from the variety of objectives he can assign - harrasment, scouting, sneak attack, fast deployment, entrenchment ect. ect.
Beside you'd have the now 'standard' setting for engagement tactics to *refine* said objectives.
When commanding smaller troops and/or doing tactical command I'd like to furbish my own battlemethods before the actual battle so I don't have to micro-manage juggle all my troops in the heat of the battle.
1) Creating battleplans.
Forget the damn fog of war! Once the area is known - or I have a map for heaven's sake I should no longer have to deal with the treachearous terrain hiding 'suprises'. It should be the enemy who suprises me with having hided that long in the mud.
Give me intelligence reports for Christ's sake! Telling me the NMI is hiding out there is a big help. Telling me that armor collums were seen marching through Braska and there are infantry entreched at the river is a lot more specific. Adding stuff like telling that said unit is likely the 17th Gravediggers known for guerilla tactics is icing on the cake, but you get the drift.
Given all those data, you don't start point-n-click managing the battle.
First you set up the objectives. Then you're given the ability to determine how the commanders react if something pops up - ergo set up the next objective if they suceed, the retreat plan if they don't.
Radio rules - you shouldn't see *all* your troops *all of the time*, only the ones directly under your control with direct communication.
So actually before the battle start I should be able to drop objectives onto the map, then write scripts for my commanders.
Beside those reactive scripts I should also have the ability to define triggers - so instead reassigning a new objective to everyone once I have drawn the enemy out, I can merly yell - "Barbeating!" - in the radio and my troops start fleeing toward my core forces who were in hiding so far.
2) Training
I don't want training to be mere stats - I want to actually be able to preset/create tactics for my forces.
This could be preset battleplans the commanders use on their own.
Formation setup, breakup; covering fire; fire zone allocation; retreat priorities; regroup priorities and methods all fall under this category.
-
@ Mefustae: Blitzkreig 2 brings GeForce 7800GTX cards to the teens of FPS. :shaking:
Are you kidding?! Every mission in the campaign has run reasonably well (with a few slowdowns in missions like taking Berlin, but that's to be expected), and my machine is well over 3 years old, with a GeForce4 Ti4200, 512Mb RAM, and an astoundingly average P4 2.4 GHz! Albeit, it's not on its highest graphics settings, but it still looks and plays great!
-
rts games have no future, unless they release starcraft 2 :D