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.
