Strategy Game Idea ....
by James Hills · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 12/04/2002 (12:02 pm) · 7 replies
At this point, the whole RTS genre is getting really stale IMO ... you have usually three opponents and basically fight for territory or to accomplish a specific goal like "who has the most artifacts" games. Wouldn't it be interesting though if you could thrust a fourth party into the mix and have the other three have individual goals.
Pardon the subject / setting (I have simplified the "real world" positions of each group it to make it work in a game), but I think it best illustrates the concept ....
What if you had a giant map of the world ... and the primary players were United States, Europe and the Muslim states and then you had terrorists who didn't control specific territory. (you can easily create a fictitious group of players to suit your individual game)
In a typical RTS each of these parties would be competing for territory, but in this one they would each have individual goals ... the US wants to eliminate terrorists in all territories, Europe wants to ensure national/international status quo and prevent their domestic Muslim population from attacking its targets and the Muslim states want to ensure they remain in power and avoid being invaded by the US. The terrorists would have the goal of preventing all three parties from achieving their goals.
The various actions would be carried out with a system of diplomacy and actions similar to what one does in Civ III. i.e. you might use a surveillance plane over one of the various parties and see a "terrorist training camp" and then bomb it, or you might offer economic incentives to the other party to accomplish a goal ... say the Muslim States might offer cheaper oil or cash (depending on how complex you want the game to be) to the Europeans in exchange for the Europeans blocking American military actions from/across their territories.
Depending on the success levels of each party and the methods that they have implored to achieve the level of success, the population will react accordingly ... an unhappy population in the US may result in less productivity = less money to fund operations, in Europe an unhappy population might result in civil disobedience = gov't devotes more attention to domestic instead of international diplomacy and in the Muslim States an unhappy population results in something else which I haven't yet developed for this scenario :)
If I am seeing things correctly, this game should provide a very unique gaming experience and cater to an audience, which is currently not being served well ... the diplomats and non-military strategists. Done correctly, this game will also provide significant replay value because unlike other RTS's where the other parties are basically the same but with different units, this provides radically different goals and strategies.
I can't wait to see your thoughts :)
Pardon the subject / setting (I have simplified the "real world" positions of each group it to make it work in a game), but I think it best illustrates the concept ....
What if you had a giant map of the world ... and the primary players were United States, Europe and the Muslim states and then you had terrorists who didn't control specific territory. (you can easily create a fictitious group of players to suit your individual game)
In a typical RTS each of these parties would be competing for territory, but in this one they would each have individual goals ... the US wants to eliminate terrorists in all territories, Europe wants to ensure national/international status quo and prevent their domestic Muslim population from attacking its targets and the Muslim states want to ensure they remain in power and avoid being invaded by the US. The terrorists would have the goal of preventing all three parties from achieving their goals.
The various actions would be carried out with a system of diplomacy and actions similar to what one does in Civ III. i.e. you might use a surveillance plane over one of the various parties and see a "terrorist training camp" and then bomb it, or you might offer economic incentives to the other party to accomplish a goal ... say the Muslim States might offer cheaper oil or cash (depending on how complex you want the game to be) to the Europeans in exchange for the Europeans blocking American military actions from/across their territories.
Depending on the success levels of each party and the methods that they have implored to achieve the level of success, the population will react accordingly ... an unhappy population in the US may result in less productivity = less money to fund operations, in Europe an unhappy population might result in civil disobedience = gov't devotes more attention to domestic instead of international diplomacy and in the Muslim States an unhappy population results in something else which I haven't yet developed for this scenario :)
If I am seeing things correctly, this game should provide a very unique gaming experience and cater to an audience, which is currently not being served well ... the diplomats and non-military strategists. Done correctly, this game will also provide significant replay value because unlike other RTS's where the other parties are basically the same but with different units, this provides radically different goals and strategies.
I can't wait to see your thoughts :)
#2
It's also a minefield... Beware about this terrorist not be only arab and european. You could add some ultra right-wing north american group, neo nazis or Ku Klux Klan inspiration, so nobody can be offended. If you can play the terrorist role, the players would make a terror axis against the nations' status quo. Over the Internet... what a simulation it would be... (creepy!!)
The whole games, nations and diplomacy/war rules would be scriptable, I think it's a must-have. For example, other subjects would be the Antartida domination, or the Middle-East crisis, or a hipotetic China-Russia-USA crisis due to the Pakistan/India war. Man, this game would be controvertable (is this the word?), something to raise a lot of discussion. What do you think?
Man, this is a great game idea!
12/04/2002 (7:44 pm)
This game would be a great breaking if you center in politics and nowadays subjects. Maybe some of us gaming nerds would reject it, but to the common man, the solitaire player, that huge market wilderness waiting for a breakthru, your game would be the entry point to our industry. This audience is not concerned to aliens vs. marines thru dimensional gates. The daily news and possible scenarios, the fun to build a possible future is much more attractive to them.It's also a minefield... Beware about this terrorist not be only arab and european. You could add some ultra right-wing north american group, neo nazis or Ku Klux Klan inspiration, so nobody can be offended. If you can play the terrorist role, the players would make a terror axis against the nations' status quo. Over the Internet... what a simulation it would be... (creepy!!)
The whole games, nations and diplomacy/war rules would be scriptable, I think it's a must-have. For example, other subjects would be the Antartida domination, or the Middle-East crisis, or a hipotetic China-Russia-USA crisis due to the Pakistan/India war. Man, this game would be controvertable (is this the word?), something to raise a lot of discussion. What do you think?
Man, this is a great game idea!
#3
12/05/2002 (9:23 am)
Alex, have you ever played Sacrifice? Granted you were a wizard and your men were this big monster things a lot of the time, but it had some neat touches. If you ordered a formation, you'd yell out the formation (ie "Phalanx Formation" "Move!") or like if you told them to attack move youd yell "Advance!". It was pretty cool. Part of the problem was being targeted though. As long as your enemy kept the most annoying units on you, you could hardly fight back.
#4
They can each connect to each other and fight/trade/communicate with each other and each has their own goals as well, but on a smaller level. That would create an entirely new a sub game / sub culture below the national level of the game.
The funny thing is that the DoD is probabbly already working on simulations like this :)
I wonder how you would go about starting something like this. The design doc would be enormous.
12/05/2002 (1:06 pm)
I like the idea of the multi-dimensional terrorist cells ... I hadn't really thought of it in that sense, but that would be a fantastic idea.They can each connect to each other and fight/trade/communicate with each other and each has their own goals as well, but on a smaller level. That would create an entirely new a sub game / sub culture below the national level of the game.
The funny thing is that the DoD is probabbly already working on simulations like this :)
I wonder how you would go about starting something like this. The design doc would be enormous.
#5
12/05/2002 (3:41 pm)
Sacrifice rocked, i loved it a lot, and its the only game of its kind. More games with this heart-pounding adrenaline rush of excitement on the battlefield are needed. I want my subwoofer to thump with explosions, or the huge creatures charging across a landscape. Maybe something with a middle-earth style to it, with you as an ent lord dude (or some kind of cheap ripoff) ordering his army into battle. Or even just controlling your country/government from a first person view. That would be interisting to do. You could have cool diplomatics. Perhaps your leader could choose to have a few guards follow him. Or maybe, when he's meeting another leader, he decides to have a nifty little assassination. Maybe you would carry a concealed weapon, or you would tell your guards to kill the other guy. Or maybe have someone else do it, while you try to cover it up and everything. Possibilities are endless.
#6
12/05/2002 (11:01 pm)
Terrorists don't fight set piece battles so it would be rather odd unless your at the strategic level only.
#7
But it reminds me of a game called "Balance Of Power" mixed with C&C
12/06/2002 (11:02 am)
This sounds like a cool game. But it reminds me of a game called "Balance Of Power" mixed with C&C
Torque Owner Alex Jacobs
Something to think about. An alternative.