�

�

Introduction

One of the best selling genres of games to still sell on the PC is the real time strategy game or RTS.� There are many different kinds of RTS games on the market, but most of them have many similarities. It is very challenging to make a top selling RTS these days however since it seems that only the top three or four franchises are selling well. Many games which have been critically acclaimed have sold very poorly. Players get upset that there has been little innovation in the genre over the last five years, yet whenever an innovative game comes out, nobody buys it. If you ask most hardcore players what they would like to change in their favorite game, most of them don�t want anything changed. Designing a great single player campaign and game often requires different things than a great multiplayer experience. All of this and much more make designing an RTS very challenging. This article will help familiarize yourself to the various issues involved in designing strategy game and what you need to know before you tackle this challenging task.

It can be debated how much writing a design document is helpful. Just like in designing any other kind of game, you won�t know if your ideas are any good until you try them. Building a great prototype and iterating on your ideas while in the game is still a critical process in designing a great RTS. More than any other type of game however, a great RTS requires a lot of planning, thinking, writing and up front design work. It�s almost impossible to develop an RTS without a design doc. Chris Taylor managed to design a great RTS called Total Annihiliation without writing a design document, but the core of the game was geared towards a very technical design which worked for what was needed.

Variants

There are many different kinds of RTS games on the market. From Command and Conquer to Shogun to Homeworld, there are many different kinds of games out there. It can be argued how successful the hybrid games are however, since many of the hybrids almost become a niche market instead of their intended mass market. Many of the hybrids have come about because designers continue to look at strategy games and see that there is a lot about them that they don�t like, so they assume they need fixing.

The most common RTS variant is one where resource management is minimized or eliminated in favor of more action. Games like Shogun Total War are probably the best example of a recent action RTS. Other hybrids have tried to add in role playing elements in a hope to make them more appealing to RPG players. Warcraft III originally had a lot of RPG elements in it, but the final game took many of the new features out in favor of a more traditional model. The final main variant are the Empire building games which minimize or eliminate combat in favor of city building and technology researching. There are also some variants which aren�t technically real-time, and mix in some turn based elements. Many other RTS variants have been tried, but to mixed reviews and sales.

Origins

To fully understand the RTS game, it is important to realize how it evolved. Strategy games have existed since very early times. Games like Chess and Go have been around for thousands of years and people still continue to play them. Modern board games have taken on all forms, from military themed to just about anything you can imagine. Most of the current older RTS players are typically people who grew up playing strategy board games and then found a new substitute. Board games then evolved into military war games which were hex based games that tried to accurately recreate warfare. Most of the early RTS computer games evolved from these genres and even from many of the famous board game designers like Bruce Shelly and Sid Meier.

The current generation of computer RTS games has evolved a lot over the last 10 years. Westwood Studios revolutionized the industry when it first introduced Dune II. The genre has changed a lot over the years, but the basic formula has stayed the same. The biggest influences in the industry have of course been the best sellers. Command and Conquer, Warcraft, Starcraft, and Age of Empires have had the biggest impact on the industry over the years.

Audience

It is tough to classify the audience who play RTS�s. The games appeal to a wide range of people, which is what keeps them so popular. Statistically the biggest group of players are the casual players. The casual players typically only play the single player game and rarely go online. Most causal players have tried playing online at least once, but usually have a bad experience and don�t go back. There bad experiences usually have revolved around having trouble connecting to games, finding a game that suits them and then they often get crushed in their first experience which makes it difficult to return. For this reason, it is critical that when we design an RTS we make sure we understand why they are playing and what they want and not let the more vocal hard core players and our own likes or dislikes drive our design decisions.

The hard core players will usually play the single player campaign as a way to build there skills for their online multiplayer play. Most hard core players do tend to play predominantly only online however. It is estimated that five to ten percent of the players are hardcore, but yet we often design many of the features for them. This is because hard core players drive the sales of causal gamers since they spend more time talking about the game to people and are more active in the forums.

When designing a new game it is hard to know which market to cater to. We usually are forced to appeal to both audiences. Causal gamers are just after a fun experience with a lot of variety and that is compelling to play. They enjoy a great story, lots of action and cutscenes. Casual gamers are also the most diverse set of gamers however and tend to be the types of players who want to play the game any way they want. Causal gamers will experiment with different kinds of game play and will play less predictably.

Hard Core players are the opposite of casual gamers. Core gamers are people who memorize every tactic, every cost, time and benefit that exists in the game and how to utilize it. Most core gamers will usually play with the same tactics and sides repeatedly. They can tell you exactly how long it will take to go from start to X where they can strike a winning blow. They will also know what additional tactics they need to know to combat certain types of players. Core gamers are very anal about wanting everything to be equal and fair. There was a bug early on in Age of Empires that caused their gold pile to appear one tile farther away than it was supposed to. Most core gamers who saw this bug happen immediately quit the game because they knew that this one bug would cause them to loose the game due to the amount of additional collection time which would be required to harvest the gold. Core gamers want symmetrical maps and the game to be perfectly balanced.

Macromanagement vs. Micromanagement

Macromangement is when the player spends their time building units, fighting and collecting resources at a high level. This contrasts with Micromanagement where the player spends their time doing mush smaller tasks related to individual units or functions. Each RTS tends to appeal towards one kind of a player or another. The trend today seems to be moving towards more Micromanagment in strategy games, but this doesn�t mean it is any better. Some games allow for micromanagement but also have lots of automation ability which can make the game easier. In Warcraft III many of the units have a special attack ability, but the player has the ability to click on the interface and make the unit always perform that function whenever it determines it is necessary.

There is no right or wrong answer to how much management an RTS should have, but there are critics of both solutions. Hard Core players often like to micromanage their units because they know how to get the most out of each unit, while casual gamers usually get confused by all of the options and possibilities.

The key to making a great game in my opinion is to provide a deep game play experience which is also simple. A deep game does not have to be complex. It is possible to allow for many different game play techniques, but still allow for the most basic and obvious techniques to still be available to new or causal players. In other words, there must be enough depth to the game design so that it is tough to master. A good game always has new tactics constantly being discovered.

Decision-making is the hardest thing a player has to constantly do while playing an RTS. If you give the player too much control the gameplay becomes overwhelming. The player then stops focusing on the important decisions, while excitement takes a back seat to mundane maintenance tasks. If there aren�t enough decisions being made by the player he will grow bored and stop playing. So you have to find a balance.

Something else to consider is that most people can only remember 4-5 things at a time and usually about 8 things at the most. This is why something like a phone number is broken into chunks. If you look into Human Psychology, you�ll find that people can only keep track of so many things at once. You can teach someone to do it a little better, but most people still have problems doing too much at once. RTS games suffer the most from this human memory limitation. We expect the player to keep track of the story, multiple fights, enemy locations and tactics, researching, unit and building construction and possibly many more things, all at the same time. This is probably the biggest reason new RTS players typically suffer the most when trying to play for the first time, because they haven�t learned when to keep track of stuff and when it isn�t important. So, once again, when you decide how much management to put into a game, keep in mind that casual mass market players will usually struggle with the requirements a strategy game places on them and experienced players will always have an advantage.

If you examine the problem that management plays in an RTS, you will then understand that being successful when playing an RTS is about being able to manage your time. Most people think that the real challenge is managing your resources, but in the end resource management can be learned or memorized and the true challenge is how well you can manage trying to do everything at once. How much time should you spend harvesting, building, exploring, fighting or managing your units? A player controls hundreds of units, dozens of buildings and many different events that are all happening simultaneously. There is only one player, and he can only pay attention to one thing at a time. Expert players can quickly flip between many different tasks, while casual gamers have more problems with this.

A good example of this can be seen when you watch Korean Starcraft players (or any Korean RTS player). They have memorized so much of the game that the interface has become almost obsolete to them. Probably 90% of the game is played using keyboard shortcuts and the mini-map. Every unit belongs to a group, every building has a number assigned to it and every production building can have its cue added to without ever seeing it or clicking on it. They have learned that the time it takes to move to locations, find what you want, and then command it is very time wasting. It is an entirely foreign way to play to someone like myself, but for them it is fun. They enjoy winning the game so much, that it is everything to them. To me, they have taken something which was a fun experience and reduced it down to a science again which isn�t enjoyable to many people.

�So when designing an RTS and thinking about how much management there is in the game, think about how much time it will take. This simple question usually has to be answered at many different levels. Is the interface or command simple and quick to execute, is the function done repeatedly, is the function boring or entertaining and many other questions must be asked. If you look at MMORPG design, it is common for players to automate many of the features of the game because they have to be done so often. While strategy games aren�t that bad, it still is good to look at what others think is boring in the game and make sure you examine whether it is a problem that should be fixed or is inherit to the core of the game.

Many people consider resource gathering the boring part of an RTS, and some games have tried to eliminate or minimize it, yet in the end it is a function that defines what an RTS is and is probably too core to the game design of most games to be removed. Most RTS games start with you have only one or a few buildings and some workers which must collect lots of resources which you can then use to build stuff within the game. Some games only have a single resource, but most have 3-4 different types of resources. The more resources you have in the game the more complicated and tedious it is possible it can become. Too few resources however and the game can also become too easy.

The problem many strategy games have is that they make resource collecting too easy or monotonous. In Impossible Creatures you could collect Scrap (Gold) and Energy. You almost always started with a very large scrap pile in your base where it was easy to get to and defend and energy was collected by just putting up windmills. The windmills were then usually put up and then forgotten about. While this minimized the amount of time and focus on resource collecting, it made it boring. There was no strategic challenge or large obstacle to collecting resources. There was also only one way to collect the resources. In Age of Empires there were many ways to collect food. You could pick berries, hunt animals, build farms, fish, throw nets from shore and more. In Command and Conquer you had to collect Tiberium which grew in large patches which were hard to defend and dangerous to some while Harvesters which collected the Tiberium became regular targets for enemy troops. This meant that collecting resources was another strategic element to the game and not just another menial task.

The main point of collecting resources is so that you can build new units. In some games, or at certain times in the game it is the person with the most units who comes out ahead. It is usually the person with the best or most powerful units who win, unless the other player happens to have the right counter unit to defend themselves. Players must figure out how to best spend their resources and when they should buy units. The cost and time to build a unit or an army controls the flow of the game.

The purchasing of units becomes more complicated because of what is called the tech tree. In most strategy games the player can build special buildings which can research new technologies. These new technologies may allow the player to build new units or just increase the abilities of a unit. In some games like Age of Empires you can buy individual upgrades or units and also advance a whole bunch of things all at one time by a single large and very expensive upgrade, what they call going to a new age. Typically the player who can get to the final age of the game the fastest will usually win because he gets the most powerful units the quickest.

A horde of cheaper, less powerful units isn�t always possible because most games also have a maximum number of units you can have or control. The population limit was introduced in RTS games in order to keep them running fast. Too many units and the game runs too slow. In some games each unit takes the same number of population points (usually one), while in other games more powerful units may cost more points. Having units which cost more points than another is another type of resource management. The player must be able to determine if X# of one type of unit are better than 4X# of another kind of unit. So even though you don�t spend population points, the player still has to manage it.

Having a population limit in a game is good for the games performance and also helps players only control a smaller number of forces which makes the game easier to play. Controlling too many units at one time can be difficult, especially for casual players. Some players complain when the game restricts them, but as long as the restrictions are too excessively small, players will tend to happily live with the restriction.

Another way players are restricted in some games is with their buildings. Not only is the order you can build in controlled by a tech tree that says you must build X before Y so that you can build Z, but many games restrict where you can even build. A major problem in strategy games is with a tactic called rushing. This is where the player sends as many units at the other player as quickly as possible. A variant of this is called Tower Rushing, but it can be done in many ways. This can be done by sending a worker close to an enemy camp and building a strong offensive building close by. Some games therefore restrict the player and say that any new building must be built within a nearby radius of another instead of anywhere the player wants. There are problems with both designs. If you restrict the player and only let them build around their base (like C&C) you eliminate many tricky and potentially fun tactics. In C&C Generals the GLA can build a tunnel network anywhere they want, so a fun tactic is to send a worker out early in the game and then build a hidden tunnel exit behind the enemies base so that you can send troops out of it at a later time and surprise the other player. Another down side to making the player build next to another building is that players often use what is called Chaining where they build a lot of cheap buildings in one direction so that they can reach the desired area. The downside to letting people build anywhere is that players can Tower Rush or do other similar tactics. Another consideration is that building anywhere can lead to sprawling bases which look strange and are hard to defend, while restricted building can lead to very tight and fortified bases which are almost impossible to breach using normal forces.

For many players building their bases is the best part of the game, while others prefer combat. In order to have a deep game which is fun for as many people as possible, you don�t want to discount the fact that there are many different kinds of players out there. Just because you hate building bases or researching doesn�t mean others feel the same. The base building aspect of the game can add a lot of replayability to the game for many casual gamers, especially when each side in the game does it differently.

In every RTS there are multiple factions. There are currently two main schools of thought, few distinct factions or many similar factions. A game like Age of Empires II has a ton of different factions which are all very similar, while a game like Starcraft has three very different sides which play totally different from each other. The trend seems to be that players like fewer sides and more game play variation. Another branch of this model is the use of sub-factions which are smaller factions you can ally with which will give you some additional units and abilities. Like everything else in RTS design, there is no right or wrong way to design the factions in a game. However, you want to offer as much diversity in the game play as possible. Balancing three different and totally unique sides though is far from easy and will either make or break the game.

When designing a few unique sides it is important to look at not only what the sides should or would play like, but how players play the game. It is harder to design a few unique sides with historical or realistic games however, since most of the time a knife is a knife and a gun is a gun.

If possible however, you must determine the audience for your game. There can be many different kinds of RTS players. Builders are people who like to build cities, collect resources and research new technologies. Fighters are people that just want to brawl. Rushers are players who always try and get you as quickly as possible, even if it means they loose if the rush fails. Sneakers are players who like to try unique tactics like building captures, sneak attacks, stealing and such. Defenders are people who like to make you come to them and will build up tons of defenses around their cities, which makes many Builders also become Defenders. Bombers are people who like to attack from afar, which could mean through the use of super weapons, special attacks or long range aircraft or bombardment. There are many other possible game play stereotypes. Some players play distinctly as one kind of style, while others play using a combination of styles. The important thing to understand is that people play differently and it is important to understand how you want people to play your game.

When designing the factions then of a side you must consider how people play. Not every side has to allow for all game play styles. In fact it is often best to have each side at least specialize in one type of play style which may help set it apart. There are many other ways to set factions apart as well however. Factions can collect resources differently, build differently, has different abilities and different strengths and weaknesses. One side could build very strong defenses or buildings, while the other side can create mobile defenses or buildings. One side might be able to build lots of weaker units which are fast, while the other creates slower stronger units. There are a ton of different fun possibilities. Balancing these differences however is the hard part.

�

There is still more to come...

�