MrHistory
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5291 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 04:50 PM |
I'm making a game inspired by those two, but it will be much different. I'd like some of your input with which type soldiers I should use. So far, I've got:
Rifleman Assault Sniper Machine Gunner Submachine Gunner Demolition Hacker
I'm aiming for 10-12 classes. Thanks for your input. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:00 PM |
THE SWORDSMAN THE MEDIC THE ENGINEER (FIXES BUILDINGS) |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrHistory
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5291 |
|
| |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:10 PM |
| Suicide Soldier they explode stuff, anything they touch is gone or injured badly |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Walyn
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 30 May 2007 |
| Total Posts: 14570 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:23 PM |
I take it you mean RTS?
I suggest making a list of unit archetypes that you want to fill, and then work off of there, adding more specific units if you want more units.
What type of game is this? FPS? Strategy? RPG? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrHistory
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5291 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:30 PM |
@Wayln
Strategy. Like the other two, but I want it to be much different |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Walyn
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 30 May 2007 |
| Total Posts: 14570 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:35 PM |
If you really want to be different, then I have two main suggestions:
1. Make the pace faster (30 minute games instead of 60~90 minutes, assuming equal player skill and not just one guy curb stomping everyone)
2. Make mistakes in build order less punishing (Little Men - just get an ally, have him protect you, and focus on economy for an easy win - Conquerors - I don't know, I always lose because I don't know what to build)
I'll elaborate on this in a few more posts. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrHistory
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5291 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:39 PM |
| With the ally system, I will only allow an alliance to have the same amount of units as a single player. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Walyn
|
  |
 |
| Joined: 30 May 2007 |
| Total Posts: 14570 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 05:59 PM |
Well, then what is the point? An alliance would be a deathtrap, making you lose the ability to keep a large army for the ability to maybe pool your resources so you can turtle up in the side of the map.
Anyways, on making a faster paced strategy game: You want more moves to matter. The Little Men regularly broke down into a 60 minute war of ineffectual attrition for three reasons: Defenses were too difficult to break; If you attacked, you could rebuild your army sufficiently to defend against the counter-attack, and it was the one who rushed and got the steam plants first that would win in the end due to economy anyways.
As you can see in that example, only the first move mattered in the end. Whomever took the steam plants was rewarded for their move with a victory. If you want a faster paced game, you want more of these opportunities, but at a lesser scale.
The problem was that there was no units capable of skirmishing with other forces and surviving. I believe the Scout was an attempt to solve this, but it is too weak to handle even a force of Soldiers of a lesser amount, and they could not do enough damage to buildings to harass unguarded steam plants.
Game pace is increased as you mechanically allow players to have more opportunities to make plays that will benefit them, and allow them to chain them together so that they can, at the very least, think they can win by attacking.
But you also want the other players to be able to counter these plays, so that they can try to take charge of the pace of the game. A skirmishing unit would have been the counter for the stockpiling tactics of The Little Men, for instance. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
MrHistory
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Aug 2010 |
| Total Posts: 5291 |
|
|
| 06 Aug 2012 06:25 PM |
Thanks for the info. I'll be sure to use it when scripting.
I made an alliance have the same amount as a single player because I remember my friend and I easily defeating all the players because we simply have a larger force. In my alliance system, the two players play as one, meaning the troops are under 1 name, the money is under 1 name, etc. This way, a non-allied player will not have to worry about the crushing force of an alliance with twice as many units |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Gamecube4
|
  |
| Joined: 20 May 2009 |
| Total Posts: 1180 |
|
|
| 07 Aug 2012 11:53 AM |
| Maybe there should also be a level system in place. Like one class of your force can be more powerful than others by being a higher level. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|