Re: [gamedesign-l] best command & control in RTS?
- On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Brandon Van Every <bvanevery@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Rainer Deyke <rainerd@...> wrote:I am only guessing but I believe that's why he mentioned:
>> Thought experiment: units can be as big as you want them to be, with
>> literally no upper limit. All units consist of generic soldiers. The
>> bigger unit always wins, with some adjustment for terrain and defensive
>> structures. The only way to stop the enemy's big unit of doom is an
>> even bigger unit. What would be the ultimate strategy? One big unit on
>> an unstoppable rampage? A swarm of tiny units pumped out faster than
>> the enemy can take them down? Something in between? Would it be a
>> strategically interesting game?
> "300" springs to mind.
"...with some adjustment for terrain and defensive structures."
If the Spartans (and their much more numerous allies) had been caught
on an open plain and not at the hot gates they would have been
destroyed with little effect to the Persians and at best a footnote to
history rather than a highlight.
And just about every computer game fails the "300" test. I can't
recall one that does a decent job at it. At least one of the Civs
(and maybe all) gave some bonus from terrain, but it was pretty much
still impossible to pull off a "300."
- On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Ryan Fisk <ryan.fisk@...> wrote:
>None of them bother to have much dynamic range for combat. Most have
> And just about every computer game fails the "300" test. I can't
> recall one that does a decent job at it. At least one of the Civs
> (and maybe all) gave some bonus from terrain, but it was pretty much
> still impossible to pull off a "300."
only 8..16 types of terrain, where "mountains" are pretty easy to make
roads over. Unit combat is just an odds spread, tactics are not
actually modeled. Games generally don't investigate the possibility
of tactics. You could call it the "martial arts problem."
Brandon Van Every