RTS guerilla game
by cheese_phantom · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 08/09/2005 (1:34 pm) · 5 replies
Hi,
I think that for quite a long time we were missing a game with the richness of the X-Com series. A game that has some detailed micro-management, solid strategic/tactical gameplay, and a strong storyline that comes to life through our actions rather than being a surface or an excuse for us hitting on keys.
The setting of the game would be an island invaded by foreign forces and you would start as a small team of resistance fighters that try to organize themselves to grow bigger. The goal would be to defeat the invaders. You'd have only a camp in the mountains first. There are villages around with some facilities of strategic importance, like a church or a printing house. Tactical missions would include to defend your camp if it is found by foreign S&D troops, to attack convoys, to raid garrisons of invaders, to infiltrate villages and get the folks to support you, to gain control over strategic points at the map (such as bridges or main roads) etc. In this regard it would be a bit like Jagged Alliance II where you gradually gain more power and control and expand you territory. But I'd like the gameplay to be more like in X-Com Apocalypse. You should be able to play in real-time, but pause any time to reconsider your combat tactics: assign new waypoints or targets to particular warriors. Stategic challenges would include where to deploy the new villagers that joined your guerilla forces, to train them, to decide how to distribute sources: Would you rather buy new weapons or spend money on a research workshop to analyze the functions of a weapon you gained from your enemy during combat?
You could also operate on a number of islands, an archipelago, and your goal would be to conquer the biggest island in the center of the map. Taking several smaller islands under control would mean you can cut naval support lines of the invaders etc.
There would be also bribery and espionage. You could capture enemies alive and get important intelligence. But same would be true if you lose a combat and your man are captured. A high-rank warrior being captured would mean they would find out where your camp is and you'd have to face strong attacks by huge troops with even artillery and air support. But you could also relocate your camp at another point of the island. etc etc
What do you think? Do you like the idea?
I think that for quite a long time we were missing a game with the richness of the X-Com series. A game that has some detailed micro-management, solid strategic/tactical gameplay, and a strong storyline that comes to life through our actions rather than being a surface or an excuse for us hitting on keys.
The setting of the game would be an island invaded by foreign forces and you would start as a small team of resistance fighters that try to organize themselves to grow bigger. The goal would be to defeat the invaders. You'd have only a camp in the mountains first. There are villages around with some facilities of strategic importance, like a church or a printing house. Tactical missions would include to defend your camp if it is found by foreign S&D troops, to attack convoys, to raid garrisons of invaders, to infiltrate villages and get the folks to support you, to gain control over strategic points at the map (such as bridges or main roads) etc. In this regard it would be a bit like Jagged Alliance II where you gradually gain more power and control and expand you territory. But I'd like the gameplay to be more like in X-Com Apocalypse. You should be able to play in real-time, but pause any time to reconsider your combat tactics: assign new waypoints or targets to particular warriors. Stategic challenges would include where to deploy the new villagers that joined your guerilla forces, to train them, to decide how to distribute sources: Would you rather buy new weapons or spend money on a research workshop to analyze the functions of a weapon you gained from your enemy during combat?
You could also operate on a number of islands, an archipelago, and your goal would be to conquer the biggest island in the center of the map. Taking several smaller islands under control would mean you can cut naval support lines of the invaders etc.
There would be also bribery and espionage. You could capture enemies alive and get important intelligence. But same would be true if you lose a combat and your man are captured. A high-rank warrior being captured would mean they would find out where your camp is and you'd have to face strong attacks by huge troops with even artillery and air support. But you could also relocate your camp at another point of the island. etc etc
What do you think? Do you like the idea?
About the author
#2
08/09/2005 (3:45 pm)
It could be very good, but you would have to spend a lot of time balancing to get it right, otherwise it could end up boring. Just like what Joe Bourrie said, if you got the design just perfect it could be a winner. Otherwise, there's a good chance it could be pretty bad.
#3
Thanks again Joe. It's a good point for me that you said that the concept is "solid".
I don't have a prototype of the game, just a document of approx 15 pages that I edit from time to time. For the moment I care a bit more to refine the concept rather than getting into gameplay details. I want to be sure that I can keep the initial conflict developing along the game. For that I have to figure out what I could utilize as moments of crisis in the game. X-Com is almost as great as Civilization in that regard, because the "tech tree" and the related updates are very effective in creating a feeling of "story progress", not just tech process. I think that the mechanism in these games are great. Actually the basic mechanism is a single one and is a "flat" circle so to say. Without upgrades it would revolve endlessly (you could always remain in 4000 B.C in the Civilization game). But when you add the tech tree to it, the flat circle turns into a spiral that moves upwards. That is very similar to how dramatic structure behaves. Once you get this think working you can add other details to it. But the two main mechanism, the flat circle and the tech tree that gives it a spiral feel remain as the two basic mechanism that generate "story progress".
If I find some time I'll work on a simple prototype (playable table-top version) and experiement a bit with it.
08/09/2005 (4:06 pm)
Hey, the world is really small :-)Thanks again Joe. It's a good point for me that you said that the concept is "solid".
I don't have a prototype of the game, just a document of approx 15 pages that I edit from time to time. For the moment I care a bit more to refine the concept rather than getting into gameplay details. I want to be sure that I can keep the initial conflict developing along the game. For that I have to figure out what I could utilize as moments of crisis in the game. X-Com is almost as great as Civilization in that regard, because the "tech tree" and the related updates are very effective in creating a feeling of "story progress", not just tech process. I think that the mechanism in these games are great. Actually the basic mechanism is a single one and is a "flat" circle so to say. Without upgrades it would revolve endlessly (you could always remain in 4000 B.C in the Civilization game). But when you add the tech tree to it, the flat circle turns into a spiral that moves upwards. That is very similar to how dramatic structure behaves. Once you get this think working you can add other details to it. But the two main mechanism, the flat circle and the tech tree that gives it a spiral feel remain as the two basic mechanism that generate "story progress".
If I find some time I'll work on a simple prototype (playable table-top version) and experiement a bit with it.
#4
yes, balance will be important for sure. For the moment I am not at a point where I can start balancing something anyway. I am still in a phase were I try to define the basic mechanism that will make the broader world work. Once I have put down what mechanism will create and constantly provide the conflict to be alive, I can get more into detail and see what we as a player can in particular do within that mechanism. This is the point were I have to decide what the tools of the player will be to interfere the mechanism and make its outcomes change. Then I really think the balance issue will come in, because I have to tame or ("untame") the impact that the player can have on the mechanism with the tools I provide him with.
One thing I also have to decide yet is the historical setting or background of the game. Initially I thought of WWII and some islands in the Adriatic see occupied by Nazi or Italians. There were many resistance organizations at that time cooperating with the allies. You could use this historical knowledge as part of the "flat circle" mechanism of the game: Allies that feed in new sources for the guerillas on a weekly basis. ( This would function like the City senate in X-COM Apocalypse, that sends you money on a weekly basis).
I am still somewhat into this WWII setting, but maybe putting it a bit more in the year 2020 would allow us to phantasize a bit with types of weapons etc. This idea would also fit in a late 18th century setting making the Quakers its subject. A story like that in the movie "Patriot", just on a more local level, say you are the leader of a group of quakers in a smaller part of virginia and have to defeat the english. I have no concrete knowledge about the quakers so historically I might be wrong here however.
08/09/2005 (4:29 pm)
Thanks Aegis,yes, balance will be important for sure. For the moment I am not at a point where I can start balancing something anyway. I am still in a phase were I try to define the basic mechanism that will make the broader world work. Once I have put down what mechanism will create and constantly provide the conflict to be alive, I can get more into detail and see what we as a player can in particular do within that mechanism. This is the point were I have to decide what the tools of the player will be to interfere the mechanism and make its outcomes change. Then I really think the balance issue will come in, because I have to tame or ("untame") the impact that the player can have on the mechanism with the tools I provide him with.
One thing I also have to decide yet is the historical setting or background of the game. Initially I thought of WWII and some islands in the Adriatic see occupied by Nazi or Italians. There were many resistance organizations at that time cooperating with the allies. You could use this historical knowledge as part of the "flat circle" mechanism of the game: Allies that feed in new sources for the guerillas on a weekly basis. ( This would function like the City senate in X-COM Apocalypse, that sends you money on a weekly basis).
I am still somewhat into this WWII setting, but maybe putting it a bit more in the year 2020 would allow us to phantasize a bit with types of weapons etc. This idea would also fit in a late 18th century setting making the Quakers its subject. A story like that in the movie "Patriot", just on a more local level, say you are the leader of a group of quakers in a smaller part of virginia and have to defeat the english. I have no concrete knowledge about the quakers so historically I might be wrong here however.
#5
08/09/2005 (4:35 pm)
I don't want to have the game "anonymous" avatars as in some other RTS games. In Age of Empires they're all just archers and you create them like on an assembly line. In this game you only get a few new warriors a week and have to capture a printing house for propaganda, then you get more fighters to join you. You should be able to train your men and they should become more quality fighters the more they gather combat experience. So it should really make you care about your experienced fighters. Loosing one of them should hurt you. Simply because you put more effort in it than just clicking on a button to create a "new" one. 
Torque Owner Joe Bourrie
Good luck!