quote: From MadkeithV

I think that nomatter how obscure you name the units, and how weird the graphics for them are, it''ll always come down to "how far can this thing shoot and how much damage does it do".

quote: From Me
As we''ve disscussed, combat engines could deffinitly do with a major overhaul. Maybe a look at the systems used in rpgs (as mentioned) could be useful. I personally love the thac0 system from 2nd edit D&D.

Although, the system i was planning on using for my java-script strategy game took a few pages out of the Axis and Allies combat engine. What i''m talking about is rather than having the entire combat system revolve around shelling out damage the player also manages how much damage they take. Called a "Damage Control" Managment system. You can already do this in most RTS''s by using canon fodder in front of you expensive firepower but these game don''t supply any "control" help/game-orientation for these senerio''s. This would have to be my main criticism on current RTS''s. They need a better tactical gui/control-system for the game.

But apart from this micro-management issue there''s also the second most important issue [to me] that most RTS games don''t address well enough. This is "Combat Opportunities". Combat Opportunities are what allow one player to "prove" themselves better over another player. It also allows more space for player improvements/skill-growth. Most games rely on the map design to address this issue but i think thats lazy. This can and should be address in the function of units in terms of what they are capable of doing.

To top off, i also believe that every army (tactically speaking) should have a weak spot and a strength. The reason being is that by bringing in weak spots and strengths it allows the player after the battle to be able to pin point where they went wrong. It also allows the better player with a smaller force to win again a larger force because they knew things like how and when to strike at the enemy. Enough for now :p