Balenced Forces in RTS (Rant-ish)

[SidewinderX]

One of the things that bothers me most is that in every RTSi've pkayed, there's absolutly no advantage to having a balenced force. (Keep in mind I'm talking about multiplayer). No one in the right mind would have a balenced force as opposesed to a huge army of tanks or whatever.

Can SOME developer make a game that uspports a balenced force? please?

 

[The DemonWithin]

ill get on it right this instant

 

[Guest]

Ill call my friend at Blizzard to get right on it once Im done playing my advanced copy of HL2

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by The DemonWithin
ill get on it right this instant

Be sure to make it good

Anyway, some RTS games have tried. Most have failed, cause the extremes are to small. If there only is a small advantage (ie pikemen are better than archers against horsemen), you could easily have 10x as many archers as you would have pikemen, they would simply mow down the horsemen. And of course have the range that the archer have, plus other bonuses. The same goes with the tank.

The thing is, to avoid it, one need to have BIG extremes. I mean, an archer should hardly be able to take down a horseman. He wouldnt do any damage at all. The pikemen on the other hand should be able to just pick them off one at a time, even if they are like 100 horsemen against 30 pikemen. This is the only way I know to encourage a balanced force. And the most tactical.

My mod, Unaimed, will actually focus on these extremes, as I want to FORCE (I dont trust players to do it on their own) a balanced team, one way or another. Armor/weapon ratings like the standard RTS rock-paper-scissors might be in there. A Scouts bullets would bounce of the armor of a Heavy Combine

 

[SidewinderX]

ill get on it right this instant

Ill call my friend at Blizzard to get right on it once Im done playing my advanced copy of HL2

Thanks coming up with such intelligent/helpful/witty remarks. You really added some content to htis thread.
Actually, what might be nice is a percentage limitation thing. IE You cna only have a max of 60% of any unit or something
Dawdler: That's EXACTLY what I mean.

 

[ductonius]

I dont know what your so upset about. In real life armies use masses of a particular type of unit they happen to be good with to overcome thier enemies.

Soviets in WWII = human wave attack (The first scene in "Enemy at the Gates" was a pretty good example)

Germany WWII = Tanks, tanks, tanks,

US WWII = Airpower

The last two can be proved by looking at the battle of the bulge. When fog rolled in and the Americans were denied aircover, the Germans rolled over them. When the fog lifted and the US could use its planes again, the Germans were forced back, and the Germans were denied aircover of thier own by the US planes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, I won most of my battles in RA2 by using a mix of units.

5 parts Grizzlie tank
5 parts prisim tank
5 parts Mirage tank
2 parts IFV with eng

When you get to the enemy base simply set the IFV's to guard (which sets them to repair any damaged nearby unit), park you mirages in the front (the computer wont auto target them, and enemy units can get stuck going around them), then the grizzlies (which is what the computer will go for, being closest it can see) then prisims (which have the range to attack even from the back).

Then move in and watch your enemies frustration as you cut a swath through his base and your IFV's race around repariing damaged units.

What fun!

The same strat works well in reverse for defense, except you wall up the prisims (for extra armour) and stick them in the front with the mirages.

 

[LoneDeranger]

I think that Starcraft did a good job with this, as far as I can remember. If you sent out a group of tanks without any AA cover, they would basically be annihilated. Also you needed some light infantry units around to distract any melee attackers.

So basically my tactic was deploying a dozen seige tanks, protected by a dozen battlecruisers and wraiths, and a whole lot of marines. The tanks would be constantly in seige mode with the ones in the back moving forward when needed. It was a slow, but almost unstoppable force.

 

[The Mullinator]

One thing that is a problem with some strategy games is that the units that you can do a mass assault with are simply too good for there price. Some games have useless infantry, take RA1 a tank rush is the best way to go, but if the rocket infantry were much more effective against vehicles then you would almost eliminate the mass tank rush.

LoneDeranger is right, Star Craft did a good job with balances, but it still could have been better.

 

[Zerimski]

Apparently, Homeworld 2 is meant to be quite well balanced.

 

[SidewinderX]

Zerim: Actually, that's what sparked this. To win in that, you can flood them with Flak frigates and gun/ion platforms.

Originally posted by ductonius
I dont know what your so upset about. In real life armies use masses of a particular type of unit they happen to be good with to overcome thier enemies.

Soviets in WWII = human wave attack (The first scene in "Enemy at the Gates" was a pretty good example)

Germany WWII = Tanks, tanks, tanks,

US WWII = Airpower

The last two can be proved by looking at the battle of the bulge. When fog rolled in and the Americans were denied aircover, the Germans rolled over them. When the fog lifted and the US could use its planes again, the Germans were forced back, and the Germans were denied aircover of thier own by the US planes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was semi true in WWII. I could debate agaisnt it, but I won't (right now). However, in modern wars, if tanks move without infantry, the tanks will be cut to bits by Staggers and such. If infantry move without vehicles, they will cut to pieces. If bombers move in w/o wild wheasals, they'll be ripped to shredas by SAMs.

 

[crabcakes66]

Total anhilation....

One of the best RTS games ever.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by ductonius
Germany WWII = Tanks, tanks, tanks,

That's not true, cause airpower played a VERY important role. The tanks that rolled into Poland hardly had anyone to fight, as the Luftwaffe had levelled everything to the ground.

Total anhilation....

One of the best RTS games ever.

A little... I still found that it was fairly easy to do a tank rush. Except not with tanks, I used the hovercrafts its large numbers (my maps where always swarming ), sometimes supported by the commander (with his mega gun, whatever its name was).
So that's two 2 units needed to win any map... Bombers and planes could cause a little problem, but nothing big.

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by dawdler
That's not true, cause airpower played a VERY important role. The tanks that rolled into Poland hardly had anyone to fight, as the Luftwaffe had levelled everything to the ground.


A little... I still found that it was fairly easy to do a tank rush. Except not with tanks, I used the hovercrafts its large numbers (my maps where always swarming ), sometimes supported by the commander (with his mega gun, whatever its name was).
So that's two 2 units needed to win any map... Bombers and planes could cause a little problem, but nothing big.

I still think large groups of mixed cheap units was the best strategy(and most fun).

Of course theres nothing like pumping out 200 of the same tank and throwing at your enemy.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
I still think large groups of mixed cheap units was the best strategy(and most fun).

Of course theres nothing like pumping out 200 of the same tank and throwing at your enemy.

The last thing is the point. Even though you could be able to pump it out, you should be unable to win with it. But its much the AI's fault too... (when playing against computers, when playing against players it can be a stalemate when 200 tanks meet 200 tanks ). The AI doesnt see the player tactic. If the player pumps tanks in enourmous amounts, and no aircraft defense, the AI should immidietly start pumping out bombers in extreme amounts and just blow everything up. But it doesnt do that... It just attacks with some 5 tanks and a few infantry units...

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by dawdler
The last thing is the point. Even though you could be able to pump it out, you should be unable to win with it. But its much the AI's fault too... (when playing against computers, when playing against players it can be a stalemate when 200 tanks meet 200 tanks ). The AI doesnt see the player tactic. If the player pumps tanks in enourmous amounts, and no aircraft defense, the AI should immidietly start pumping out bombers in extreme amounts and just blow everything up. But it doesnt do that... It just attacks with some 5 tanks and a few infantry units...

OT: the AI was one of the worst parts of that game.

Even after downloading AI mods I could still beat it.


And playing against the computer on easy was like playing by yourself.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I had a rather fun tactic to win at TA:

scout out the enemy base, find the commander... and get build up a massive air force and divebomb the commander with gunships shooting him, and bombers ready to pound him ... it nearly always worked, and I have good defensive stratagies too ....

on the subject of balence.... I though WC3 did it pretty good.... I always make balenced forces

 

[crabcakes66]

Originally posted by mrBadger
I had a rather fun tactic to win at TA:

scout out the enemy base, find the commander... and get build up a massive air force and divebomb the commander with gunships shooting him, and bombers ready to pound him ... it nearly always worked, and I have good defensive stratagies too ....

on the subject of balence.... I though WC3 did it pretty good.... I always make balenced forces

I never liked WC3. Not enough to do.


I hope starcraft2 isnt done like wc3 was.

 

[Fat Tony!]

I think Age of empires2 is quite balanced i always have a balanced army

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Fat Tony!
I think Age of empires2 is quite balanced i always have a balanced army

To easy to dominate with archers. AOE 1 was the same. In AOE2 I only had to be british, and chug out longbowmen in the hundreds. The enemy army (whatever composition) was mowed down before even reaching my forces. Age of Mythology is slightly better, but still not good.

Personally, I think Rise Of Nations did a fairly good job... But there you have too many forces overall. A well balanced game would have to be like WC3 (where more individual units count, not numbers) and using massive extremes...

Now when I think on it, Ground Control did a fairly good job. Mostly cause it used special attacks (ie infantry get AT rounds that can take out a tank in one hit). Not perfect, but pretty good. Once you got artillery and did manual aiming, all balancing went to hell

 

[ComradeBadger]

Ground Control 2 is put soon

/me dances

I thought WC3 was great.... i loved the fact that heroes werent unstoppable, even when they were level 10

 

[SidewinderX]

In AOE2, you could pretty much coose a unit and win by mass-producine it.

But, now that I ttink about it, RoN did a very good job of balencing. Sure my b-52 armada folowed by my army on the ground pretty mcuh concored everyhting... But my army on the ground was faily balenced. Some assault infantry, some Tanks, sone AA, and alot of artillery.

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by SidewinderX143
In AOE2, you could pretty much coose a unit and win by mass-producine it.

But, now that I ttink about it, RoN did a very good job of balencing. Sure my b-52 armada folowed by my army on the ground pretty mcuh concored everyhting... But my army on the ground was faily balenced. Some assault infantry, some Tanks, sone AA, and alot of artillery.

I actually didnt play RoN in modern time that much, mostly just renaissance. I think the pace (with bombers and tanks and all that junk) becomes to fast

I do remember that using a low limit (ie 75 or even 50) and limit it to renaissance demanding quite a balanced army. Cause you cant ever really get a large enough force to be strong with just one type of unit. The AI had a tendency to concentrate on horsemen alot, while I liked mostly using riflemen and artillery, and that... erhm, wasnt quite a good tactic
My armies always got mangled by the enemy. I had to use pikemen and horsemen of my own to stand a chance. So it turned out pretty balanced. But the limit in population was a VERY important factor to it, not only actual unit balances.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Has anyone mentioned the Total War games yet? They were great for this kind of stuff. Everything was done perfectly. Cavalry are great against swordsmen, and archers etc, but when it comes to people with spears, they are crappy (Unless the spearmen have low morale or the cavalry have irresistible charge, but ii wont go into that now). Archers, in particular the English longbowmen were great at taking down troops so long as they were on top or a hill or at least far off, but if any guys got in close such as light cavalry, then you could kiss those archers goodbye. Heavy infantry are great at killing spearmen, archers and light infantry but when the cavalry comes or there is some artillery they have no chance. I could go on but i really cant be bothered.

Originally posted by ductonius
I dont know what your so upset about. In real life armies use masses of a particular type of unit they happen to be good with to overcome thier enemies.

Soviets in WWII = human wave attack (The first scene in "Enemy at the Gates" was a pretty good example)

Germany WWII = Tanks, tanks, tanks,

US WWII = Airpower

The last two can be proved by looking at the battle of the bulge. When fog rolled in and the Americans were denied aircover, the Germans rolled over them. When the fog lifted and the US could use its planes again, the Germans were forced back, and the Germans were denied aircover of thier own by the US planes.

You are right but didn't mention it all.

Soviets in WWII : Numbers, not just in infantry though. The Soviets built vast numbers of tanks and planes. There is of the course the famous T-34 which is arguably one of the best and most successful tanks of the war. It had a solid design and could be mass produced quite easily. The Russian soldiers were also regarded by many Germans as the true supermen, as they just kept coming no matter what faced them.

Germans in WWII : Technology, tactics and training. The Germans didn't really mass produce their units the same way the Americans and soviets did. They didn't have the resources to do so, especially later in the war. The Germans in WWII are famed for their blitzkrieg tactics. Their tanks were the most technologically advance, however that doesn't make them the best. They couldn't produce as many as was needed and even though the Tiger tank that was introduced later in the war did a lot of damage, it didn't do enough. The Germans trained their soldiers well, and especially in the youth, tried to really infuse them with a fanaticism that would push them to do well.
On a side note, the Hitler Youth are often mentioned by Russian soldiers as being the worst enemy. During that final weeks of the war, many soldiers fighting in the cities like Berlin were in fact members of the Hitler Youth and the Russian soldiers remarked on how ruthlessly they fought.

Americans WWII : Numbers, again like the Russians, although they didn't just throw their men at the enemy. Air superiority was the goal of everyone, but unfortunately for the Germans, America had a massive potential for production and they simply swamped the Germans. This also relates to other mechanical units of the war. The Sherman tank was produced in such vast numbers that it didn't matter if they were blown up, although the loss of the tank crew could be a problem . The Americans did what they do best, out produce/price the competition and put them out of business.

Truly great armies use a combination of Land, Sea and Air the defeat their enemies. Without one its difficult to win. Obviously if you are fighting in the Ocean then Sea and Air will be the main players. Similarly if you fight in land then Land and Air will be what you use.

 

[SidewinderX]

Originally posted by Farrowlesparrow
Has anyone mentioned the Total War games yet? They were great for this kind of stuff. Everything was done perfectly. Cavalry are great against swordsmen, and archers etc, but when it comes to people with spears, they are crappy (Unless the spearmen have low morale or the cavalry have irresistible charge, but ii wont go into that now). Archers, in particular the English longbowmen were great at taking down troops so long as they were on top or a hill or at least far off, but if any guys got in close such as light cavalry, then you could kiss those archers goodbye. Heavy infantry are great at killing spearmen, archers and light infantry but when the cavalry comes or there is some artillery they have no chance. I could go on but i really cant be bothered.

I didn't mention the Total WAr Series casue they were the exception to the situation, and thy're more of a tactical/Stragiec game than a standard RTS. And they're just so good

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Farrowlesparrow
Has anyone mentioned the Total War games yet? They were great for this kind of stuff. Everything was done perfectly. Cavalry are great against swordsmen, and archers etc, but when it comes to people with spears, they are crappy (Unless the spearmen have low morale or the cavalry have irresistible charge, but ii wont go into that now). Archers, in particular the English longbowmen were great at taking down troops so long as they were on top or a hill or at least far off, but if any guys got in close such as light cavalry, then you could kiss those archers goodbye. Heavy infantry are great at killing spearmen, archers and light infantry but when the cavalry comes or there is some artillery they have no chance. I could go on but i really cant be bothered.

Shogun had lousy AI, that's what made it fall. I havent tried the other games, dont know if they improved... But true, it was quite balanced. But without an enemy using the balance, its quickly became quite useless too

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Medieval had good AI and Rome looks set to be great.

Anyway, you could always play against a person if you wanted a good oppenent, or a crap oppenent

 

[ductonius]

Originally posted by dawdler
That's not true, cause airpower played a VERY important role. The tanks that rolled into Poland hardly had anyone to fight, as the Luftwaffe had levelled everything to the ground.

In the beginnig of the war that was true, but by the end of the war German tanks were clearly superior to the russin, british and american ones.

In the begining the PzKpfw III and IV were totally outguned and out armoured by the T-34 and were only a match to the Lee and Sherman tanks used by the British and US.

The Tiger I however was clearly at the top of the heap in terms of early war tanks. Massive armour, and a powerful gun in a spacious turret meant that it was able to withstand most attakcs while dealing a killing blow in a single shot.

The Tiger II introduced in sept 44 was an even greater improvement. The turret slimmed and given sloped armour which reduced its front profile to vitually nil while increasing armour protection.

To compliment the Tiger, the Germans took what they learned from captured t-34's and put it inot the Pzkpfw V, which outclassed everything. The US command estimated that it took five shermans to destory a single Pzkpfw V.

In WWII, at the end, the Germans clearly had an advantage of tanks.