as a matter of fact paul, I suggested using a waypoint system like this on the AI forum in the info_node thread (I think).

quote:
But this would be hard in a rts due to the size of the armies in a formation so maybe it needs to be modularised or something. Formations of sorts have to be the next step anyhow/yes?

200% YES !
I firmly believe in more formations and less randomly scatterd grunts.
I mean, think about it, the main thing you do during a battle is try to select massive amount of units and place them in some sort of order so they attack a bit more effectivly ... how do you call this : formation.
The problem is taht''s it''s hard to implement.
I am going to study that as well during my Master thesis, so I hope I can learn why, and how to implement it. I have already read an excellent article on Gamasutra by a coder from AoE (and I really liked automatic formations in Aoe, very cleverly done).

Ideally I see a hierarchical grouping system ...just like in an army. Of course, it implies other things in the design of the game, mainly, you would have to organize your army BEFORE it goes to battle in battalions, detachments, squads, etc... with hierarchical propafation of the order ("chain of command"). when your seargant dies, either you panick, or you rally the nearest squad, but it DOES matter.

There is lot more I imagine to improve all this, but I don''t know how feasible it is, that''s what I am gonna discover during the next 2 years ...

Anyway, I dunno you, but I am tired of seeing units go to battle and fight just like a horde of mindless zombies (mindlessly going forward, without any sort of formation, careless of the fact that everybody if falling around them ... ) unless of course I am commanding a horde of zombies

youpla :-P

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

This unit formation won''t get out of my mind. I keep thinking of Baldur''s Gate where you have party order. But in a rts you will need 2 different types of formations:
1. Travel
2. Combat

Just in case you/s havn''t played Baldur''s Gate (Shame on you )then i''ll explain how party order works (implemented). Basically there''s 5 buttons on the GUI which show patterns on them. Click on a button with a pattern and all the guys/gals in the party move in this formation.

But this would be hard in a rts due to the size of the armies in a formation so maybe it needs to be modularised or something. Formations of sorts have to be the next step anyhow/yes?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Hey Paul,
Have you seen DungeonSeige ??? I don''t know how they are going to handle party formations/functions but it is touted as a RPG/RTS game. I like the looks of it, yea the 3d graphics are nice, but I''m talking about the gameplay. check it out at
DungeonSiege



Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

Dungeon Seige looks pretty cool but what are the computers minimum requirements to play this very impressive game? It looks like a complicated version of Gauntlet?

I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

Hmmm... dunno. I looked on the sight and found nothing on this topic. I would assume a 500+Mhz proc, and lots of RAM w/ a nice 3d graphics card... oh and lots of room on the HD. Standard gaming system for today''s games I just keep thinking 640K should be enough.... I don''t know where I got that ideal from

Dave "Dak Lozar" Loeser

quote: Original post by Paul Cunningham

I''ve been thinking lately about different economics models for strategy games. The idea goes as follows:

Players make money from the value of the lands that they control. With the money made during the game player get the following choices on how to spend their dollars:

1. on units and buildings
2. improving tech levels of units (and buildings)
3. (new economics model) investing money into land which will improve the lands value for later income (Capitalisation).

I was also thinking that there would naturally have to be a cap on how much can be invested into land.

An example of this model in use is maybe:

Player 1 has a plot of land valued at 10
Player 1 consantly recieves 10 credits per (X amount of time) to spend on whatever.
Player 1 invests 4 credits into land which increases the value of the land to 12 (2 credits per 1 value point)
Player 1 will now recieve 12 credits from this plot of land instead of 10.



I love Game Design and it loves me back.

Our Goal is "Fun"!

I''ve had some ideas similar to this. If you want to read the entire doc, visit http://www.geocities.com/draqza.rm/sidea.htm

What I was thinking about was a MMORTS (haha, not an RPG...) which would allow players to vie for control of a large continent. Each player starts with a small amount of land, but they can explore and expand at a certain rate. When territories meet and form borders, players may choose to attack across the border. The battlefield is dynamically drawn from data (rather than set maps to play on) and at the end of the battle, the winner receives the territory of the battle and maybe some around it. Reinforcements come in from your already-owned territory, as does gold, wood, oil, or whatever your resources are (I was developing it with a warcraft II model).

that''s just a nutshell, but if you''re interested, you should read the entire doc.

--



All hail the Technoweenie!

Cool, sounds like an interesting idea. I have been thinking about doing it in my RPG... having players able to invest in land and run for mayor as well as manage these things... I think it would be cool


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)