resources/unit aquisition

[Ammon Ra]

thread-title is self-explanatory. did a search, sue me if this is listed somewhere else.

I get the impression from dow and ww2 that there won't be any base-building watsoever, or if so, extreemly minimally [1-2 buildings?]. So how would unit aquisitions work? a TW:R/gc style of unit selection before the game starts or a more GC2 style where you start the game and can then purchase units using...erm...some kind of point system?

A pre-game selection screen based on some point system, or a GC selection style would seem appropriate w/o any resources at all, simply a constant supply of reinforcements if you need any, every 10-15 mins [assuming games dont last 30 mins on average as dow's did]

Or myth style.

[t-cast]

At worst, it's like GC1 where you start the mission with certain picked units and that's all you get. ( Hopefully you can get get 10-15 Shermans for each Tiger you face.)
You can repair/heal your units, but no replacements.

I hope it will be a variation of DoW/GC2 where holding a "critical location" over time gains points and allows you to "buy" addition troops/armour/air strikes/artillery.
Or you get a "bounty" for each enemy unit you wack.
Additional troop could arrive at some pre-set or user defined rally point.

Probably no base building.

[TheLoneKnight]

Didn't they say (in the Developer interviews & at E3) that they were using a resource model that focused on capturing strategic areas (ala DoW)?

At any rate, I figure there WILL be base building. Not a whole lot, but probably some.


At any rate, it won't be like Rome: Total War. The Devs have said that the battles will elevate from the initial recon/scouting missions to a skirmish with perhaps a tank or two, and finally ending up as a full-out war between the players.

So choosing your stuff before the battle begins isn't going to happen, methinks. Unless you choose that sort of thing on-the-fly ingame. That could work.

[Tiresias]

Actually i wouldn't like to choose your army beforehand, that seems to me to be counter-immersive, I'd like everything to be done in game. But I do feel that it's unlikely to have base-building like traditional rts, since battles weren't fourght that way.

It has been hinted that the resorce model will be similar to DoWs, so perhaps they will take the concept of reward for territorial gain and success in battle further, and you have to request reinforcements from HQ once you complete a objective. Perhaps objectives will be less conceptual than in Dow where it is these strategic points, and be such as capture the plaza, or the bridge.

[TheLoneKnight]

Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. After all no one has seen any bright shimmering circles or ancient relics in circular platforms yet..

If they do do it, though, I think it's fair to assume that there will be only a handful of strategic points in each map. Each one is necessary, but they're far enough apart that your initial forces can't hold all of them at once.

So..you might be able to take the town square, but you can't hold it AND the bridge AND the abandoned factory AND the bluff overlooking the western side of the town.

[Tiresias]

yes, although if i hear right you might well be able to demolish the abandoned factory and turn it into a plaza :P.

on another maildly related note, pleeeease relic let us destroy bridges, it would be rather annoying if everthing in destructable except for the bridges. You could rebuild them.

[TheLoneKnight]

I think blowing the hell out of bridges is a given. You know, seeing as we can blow the hell out of everything else.

[Noir]

Somehow I don't think you would have very many tank factories in the countryside churning out vehicles every 15 seconds.

I'd prefer that units come out of a side of map that you control in a fashion somewhat like GCII, but without the dropship.

Edit:Interesting idea,maybe there's an "Engineering" soldier who would be able to do such things as build bridges and ersatz fortifications? Not exactly a "builder" unit,but maybe it could be like a specialty?

[briareos]

Edit:Interesting idea,maybe there's an "Engineering" soldier who would be able to do such things as build bridges and ersatz fortifications?

But those, too, would require more time than a typical RTS match.
BTW, I'd prefer a GC/GCII system, without buildings and production queues...online matches can be done with pre-assemble armies over a point system similar to BattleTech or WH40K.

[Tiresias]

Unknown id, your avatar is scaring me!

yes an enjineer unit would be a good idea

(why I doubted that bridges would be indestructable is becasue if they go you could be screwed, so an easy way round is to make them indestructable. C&C generals had this, where somethings were damageable, and others not, for no reason other than its more convieniant.

[Maximus Decimus]

The last thing I would want is a predetermined army system like in GCI, in my opinion it would ruin the fun and fickle nature of battles online. I would like something similar to DoW minus the buildings or keep it at a minimum. For example you could garrison a local building and make it your HQ. I think Desert Rats vs Afrika korps had a very good system set up where units came from ends of the map.

[Ammon Ra]

gc1 didn't have pre-determined army. you could customize it to suite your needs. want to go full out tanks? go ahead. prefer infantry? also possible. ect.

[snidesarchasm] Well, seeing that relic "stole" [ /me waits for massive to sue relic DR.Smart style...Hah ] the system that massive invented, if they keep on going that way coh will bound to play very much similar to gc1...[/snidesarchasm] :jest: :tooth:

[Noir]

I was under the impression that DoW and GCII's systems were basically variations from systems that dated back to at least the pre-Dune II era, when RTSes were done on consoles

[Maximus Decimus]

I believe you are correct Unknown, I do know for a fact that the GCII system is in no way original.

[The Preacher]

Obviously they aren't talking about the Resourcing/Unit Acquisition systems so they are probably still being developed. However, it can be fun to speculate, so I'll join in.

My theory is that they will have some form of map control/area control that rewards players with requisition that they can then use to purchase "re-enforcements" that would appear from off-screen (they would not be built). In addition, I would guess there will be some sort of "tech tree" that represents the escalation of the battle from a skirmish to a full scale engagement. In other words, after my scout infantry takes possession of a certain area of the map, I can spend my requisition on new units. As I continue to buy new troops, they will get "better" until at the end of the battle I have huge tanks, artillery, air strikes, etc.

This would allow Relic to have a "Tech Tree" of sorts that isn't designed to show improvements in technology as much as it is designed to show the escalating nature of each battle.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Relic did say there would be a tech tree.

[Ammon Ra]

I was under the impression that DoW and GCII's systems were basically variations from systems that dated back to at least the pre-Dune II era, when RTSes were done on consoles

linky, names, something! when were rts' ever done on consoles?(?????)

[Noir]

When that thar Herzog Zwei was king!!!1111oneoneone

and at "Spanking Pichu"

[Ammon Ra]

Wow, Herzog zwei, "Duke 2" has more tactical possibilities than...any other "rts" i've seen...

It even has transforming airplanes...and terrain that damages units...wow...It even has a "FPS" [well, 3rd person FPS] aspect to it. and a "control area for resource" type of resource system...

As the Gman said; "I am impressed"...

Thank you vereh much for that linky, "Spanking pichu"

[General Blaze]

Impressive... :jaw: How come I never heard of that RTS before?!

[Ammon Ra]

Perhaps because of its (for Americans) unpronounceable name, (it means Duke Two in German) or perhaps because it was released long before Sonic the Hedgehog catapulted the Genesis into mainstream popularity

i'd actually love to see Herzog drie... Hey relic, think you could pull that off??

[IWAssassin]

Heck I'd call it loosely based on TAs system if we had to talk about modern RTSes. TA had "strategic points" in the form of metal deposits which were distinctly limited on a map. "Control" it and put a "Listening Post" [Metal Extractor] on it and you'll gain "Requisition" at a fixed rate. The fact that DoW had listening posts definately reminded me more of TAs system than GC2s [in addition to the fact that Power was also a resource, though in TA power was the plentiful resource not "Requisiton", and in TA you technically had a unified system as for a mere 60 energy per second you could create 1 metal per second [though that meant that even with a Fusion Generator you could only make 16 metal per tick which wont support a large battle]

[Elukka]

I think it may be something like DoW, i'd just like it if it had less buildings (by this i don't mean that CoH should have less apartments and city buildings and stuff). Like somebody already pointed out, maybe a hq and a building or two.

Also, if somebody's interested, here's a couple freeware games that kinda remind me of Herzog Zwei:

Gate88
and
Rapid Aerial Deployment

If you ask me, Gate88 > RAD, even though it's a little different.

[Numenor]

The thing is though, why bother with all the realism they are putting in this game, i.e. ragdoll physics, destructable terrain, intelligent A.I. and that malarky, to then go and ruin it with something completely ridiculous like a Tank Factory that makes flat pack-easy-to-assemble-Ikea-Shermans that take a minute a time to churn out of a building the size of my garden shed. It always ruins the game for me every time.

Again with the DOW territory = points system, it's just plain unrealistic. If we look at it from a realist's point of view, if you take more ground, then naturally your superiors will assume that you're doing just fine with the amount of units you have. If your loosing ground then clearly you need more. Where is the sense in seeing that the man you hired is doing a great job digging a small hole with a trowel and then handing him a pneumatic drill? He doesn't need it...

[Tiresias]

Well maybe troops come from off screen, and you order them. Buildings would be more defensive in nature, and also to establish a command structure. Perhaps you have to control the reinforcement points.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I believe reinforcements will come from offscreen, yeah.

[DatonKallandor]

Units coming from offscreen has the possiblity of "spawn camping". Relic would be the first to implement that into RTS *shudder*.


Daton
PS.: Ammon your avatar is really distracting. Cute though.

[Ammon Ra]

daton: I know 5th comment iirc.

Each player starts with equal number of forces, say, 4 squads of infantry.
then depending on how many "VL"s you have you get extra reinforcements after 5 mins, while the team that doesn't have the VL only get their normal reinforcements.

Also, regarding what numenor suggested, depending on how important the objective is, the "brass" will send more or less reinforcements. i.e. if it's a low-important objective and you're loosing, you're less likly to get reinforcements than if you're loosing to capture a high importance vl.

[Noir]

Ohhh,a variation of the GCII system, sounds good.

[Ammon Ra]

Well, sort-of, yes. that's what i'd guess they're working on. Each side gets a limited number of units per reinfocement wave, and depending on the number of vl's you control, you get more units, and/or different types of units.

Considering relic is trying to be innovative, i get the feeling that the conventional "tech tree" won't be present. Depending ont he number of vls you control, you get acces to more powerfull units. i.e. say you control 5 vls, you then have acces to the tanks, anwhere below that you only have acces to infantry units. but more powerful/specialized ones depending on the # of vls you control.

There, i developed relic's new game tech tree. in under 5 mins. For free

[Noir]

But if that's the case, how can we make it so that even a player with fewer important places is able to turn the tide? We would have to put in some kind of mechanism that allows a player with fewer important places than the enemy so that although he is outmatched materie-wise,he still has enough to be able to outthink the enemy and potentially turn the tide, which is a textbook example of skill right there.

[IWAssassin]

Not directly so. The player with the fewer VLs has one simple objective - get more.

If there are no "bases" per se, then this can lead to all kinds of tactics here. Most straightforeward would be the hit and fade. Hit the enemy at any point on the map. Chances are you can outnumber him if you hit hard and fast, then run away. If you have the smaller force and fewer VLs, all you need is to hit VLs to take them and slowly you have more. Your force being smaller has its inherent advantages.

It's a simple concept for anyone who's played DoW with more than one opponent and with control area victory conditions on. Just because you have fewer control points NOW does not mean you've lost. In fact having fewer means you have less to defend, and if units are limited to a Company Size, and maps are reasonably large you can get quite a game of cat and mouse going while the smaller force grows in strength to the point where it no longer IS the smaller force.

As for the realism of giving reinforcements based on your effectiveness as a general - There are two sides to this. First is the turtle concept. Reinforce what's doing badly so it can do better. Then there's the attacker. Reinforce what's doing well so it can do even better. Put simply as a General if Lieutenant Bob's Platoon defeats an enemy Brigade, I'm definately going to consider giving that Lieutenant an entire Company to Command to see what he can do with a larger force.

Though you're right on the reverse. If 2nd Company is losing a critical bridge I might consider reinforcing 2nd Company with more units. [Or in a twist of logic I might have Lt Bob take Command of 2nd Company to kill two birds with one stone]

[Noir]

Oh yeah forgot about that little tidbit,makes sense

[Mr.Popo]

Honestly since it's WWII, I'd rather there not be any kind of resource gathering or base building model. I'd rather you could just set up strong points and forward bases by occupying a town or holding a hill (something along those lines,) and in terms of resources maybe you could get some kind of 'reinforcement points' by holding particular areas or defeating enemies, then call in for extra troops or tanks instead of building/training them a la your standard RTS, sort of mirroring DOW but with some deviation to go along with the WWII setting. Then again Numenor said that's pretty unrealistic - maybe you'll only be able to call in reinforcements in extranneous circumstances? It'd put more emphasis on strategy, if all you've got for most of the game is the units you start out with.

[TVSharker]

No one here ever played the Sudden Strike series??? They had no resources... but you got off screen reenforcements when you captured key parts of the map (indicated by zepplins). In MP these zepplins work alot like the DOW capture points and that as long as you hold them you got additional troops every few minutes. Single zepplins gave a few troops.. but if you were able to get a seriesfor like zepplins (red, blue, yellow, whatever) then you got large and super unit reenforcements.

Great game to this day (2D)... hope COH will be the next good WW2 RTS.

TVSharker

[Aces_High]

Again with the DOW territory = points system, it's just plain unrealistic. If we look at it from a realist's point of view, if you take more ground, then naturally your superiors will assume that you're doing just fine with the amount of units you have. If your loosing ground then clearly you need more. Where is the sense in seeing that the man you hired is doing a great job digging a small hole with a trowel and then handing him a pneumatic drill? He doesn't need it...

Perhaps there could be an upkeep system, like WC3 or or perhaps GCII? The more units you have the more your income deteriorates, and so you can't requsition as much because HQ thinks your doing just fine as it stands. That way a person who loses a lot of ground and troops can feasibly bounce back because their income rockets back up.

This is how GCII works right? I've only played the demo a bit (man I just got to go out and get that game).

[Ammon Ra]

/me nodds,
Yes, indeed you must get that game...
/me puts a spell on Ace


A "maintenace" system could work, but the upkeep in wc3 was extreemly annoying, but considering that there is a high chance that buildings/bases dont exist, it could work...Also a limited unit selectio with no reinforcemnts probably wouldn't work very well. TW:rome and gc1 [and entire myth series] both had limited units per MP game, and you dont really see alot of their fanboys preeching that it's the bestest rts out there... :Pimp: correlation i agree, not causation.

[FIG]

I want base building, I really don't care if its unrealisitic because its supposed to be a fun game, not a 100% accurate depecition of a specific battle in WW2. Lets hope supply lines come into play and that we can build bases like military operations do in REAL LIFE. Thats what they call a base, headquarters. Lets also hope requisition also comes into play like in Dawn of War. The thing I am most excited about is destructable environments.

[Aces_High]

Base building is not fun imho...
So I would rather not have a HQ in the traditional RTS sense. It just bogs down the gameplay with unnecessary micromanagement.

@Ammon: I agree, fixed troop selection is not so great. It works for something as grandly scaled as Total War, but for a company sized engagment it would be nice if we could reinforce our troops.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I agree with the point about sudden strike.

If there are enough units on a map, you run into the problem where packing more people into an area heightens the overall power of the group but lessens the efficiency of each person. Thus you need to keep units back to be efficient. Furthermore, if there are no bases, you do not have any preconceived notion of where the enemy is going to be, or what he's going to have there, and of necessity are hesitant to commit your full force in a headon assault, especially if all it gains you is killed enemy units.

This applies particularly if there are artillery units; a squad holed up in a building can call artillery/plane/whatever strikes just as effectivly as a company, but is less vulnerable to getting splatted in turn.

Look at it this way.

Perhaps you commit more troops to the field, but without bases, if you lose more troops taking a point than its worth to you and the enemies losses are paltry in comparison, you are losing your advantage in the war, though you might have won the battle. (Since, after all, you haven't destroyed factories or anything.) In Dawn of War, everyones whole armies are likely to be commited in any particular battle, and there is virtually no point in maintaining reserves.

[Ammon Ra]

base-building can be somewhat fun...i remember building huge bases in tiberium dawn with laser walls, several dozen nod pillars of light...and an edited rules file that literaly covered the map in tiberium

it depends on the audience and the gameplay involved.

Considering the amount of "base building" is going down with each relic release, it's probably safe to assume that there will not be much of any base-building.

However, there is the potential problem that, if people have no preconcieved knowledge of where the enemy is, that people would tend to turtle, and be less exploratory/agressive. This is probably what caused gc1 to be less popular than it was, although you did have the option for limitless reinforcements. Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't myth 1,2,3 work the same way? limited number of units to fight with each other? played the demo of myth 1 alot, nuver baught the game or the follow-ups...

[ionfish]

Base-building tends to be fun only if you have some investment in the style of the thing; it's the Sim City attraction. When you're desperately trying to throw some buildings up in order to get your troops into action, it's not really that enjoyable in and of itself, as the time pressure tends to preclude the contemplative aspect of such activities.

[No Surrender]

Homeworld didn't have any basebuilding and it turned out well. Acutally, I would like a degree of base building but what I really want is for Relic to come up with it's own concepts and ideas like it did in the past instead of just "take a bit of this, take a bit of that."

[FIG]

Well theres something that I love about basebuilding. Then again i am one of those dreaded turtling players but I also don't play online. I always play skirmishes more than anything. I guess reading about how units are going to be blown to smithereens makes me want to have a base so that i can have large, massive battles that take a long time to play. I've played some skirmishes against the a.i. without the unit and vehicle cap in Dawn of War and some of the battles have drawn out for 2 hours or more easily because the enemy attacks as I build up my base and keep them at bay. Then theres that one point where I've made such a large force that I send in all of my squads of space marines, terminators and lots of tanks and just wipe out each and every enemy out of existence. I guess I'm into large, long drawn out battles so thats why I want the base building. :sniper:

[Mr.Popo]

But I'm not into the whole "build as many buildings and crank out as many units as you can" rush that accompanies every single base building RTS game out there. You don't need base building to have long, drawn out battles - just lots of reinforcements.

[Ammon Ra]

turteling isn't a "bad strategy". i personally loved turteling in TA, and it worked. YOu could play it like that but you'd be a really easy target as hundreds of units march towards you. Turteling in other games is simply not-possible or you get skrewed if you aren't an expensionist incarnate. p.s. some TA games can last hours. Good game that was...*sigh*

However, coh shouldn't have basebuilding, not that base-building itself is a bad idea, just that if it's done well enough it's a good idea, but doesn't work for most games.

And to get lots of reinforcement=large epic battles, you'll probably be limited to the larger maps with more "vls". Wouldn't be good on your pc if it's an old one, or if you're 56ker.

[3zekiel]

What if CoH was based more on giving you a set number of troops and simply gave you the choices of equipment? i.e.: "All right, you guys get some mortars and SMGs, you guys get rifles and grenades, and, oh, Jones, can you and your lot drive that tank?"

Resource-gathering and any meaningful level of base-building would be incredibly unrealistic for a WWII game, especially on a company-scale. Were it larger, you might see some critical locations set aside as "supply line access" or some such, but, as it (is?) I think it's got to be pretty much independent of resource-based gaming. It'll have to focus on tactics and positional advantage, which (as was noted on other threads in this forum) makes it more like chess than risk.

Then again, I'm a little inebriated.

[davincie]

ok i found out something in my local PC magazine about recources and base building (PC gameplay) here is an badly translated version: PCGP: What kind of RTS in Company of heroes? Josh mosqueira ( an lead designer) : Company of heroes is an traditional RTS. You will build an base and build units but you wont have to gather resources on the classic way. you will have to control points on the map and those will give resources or allow special reinforcements it also is important that you defend those points well

[3zekiel]

If the game ends up as davincie sez above, i.e., DoW in a G.I. uniform, I don't think there will be much resemblance to realistic gameplay at all. (IMO.)

[Mr.Popo]

Just my humble, personal opinion, but if that's what it's going to be like, then if Relic's listening, BACK OFF NOW!! IT'S SUPPOSED TO REDEFINE THE RTS GENRE, NOT RECYCLE IT!!