IMHO you need to MiniLD #66

So I think you as a Unity developer need to take part in the MiniLD #66 game jam.

Here's why:

• We need more RTS games.
• Unity is adding instancing in 5.4 so big armies are an option (platform and hardware depending).
• Unity is adding DirectX 12 in 5.4 (check out Ashes of Singularity for inspiration below).
• Game Jams are fun even online ones you can do yourself.

Or did I mention RTS games are cool.

And some are even made with Unity...

And you have from the 26th March to 2nd April to do a full RTS game, with AI and Multiplayer, resources multiple Units... Or at least you could throw together an april fools RTS game/app!

[Update] I'm working on a simple RTS framework based on the Tanks example...

 

I'm too busy making full games to participate in even mini ludum dares.

 

I've thought about playing around with an RTS some time. The old ones like Warcraft 1 and 2 were cool. I enjoyed them a lot.

I can kind of see such a game in my mind now. Little cubes of various colors and slightly varying dimensions based on unit type all moving around. Forests of green pyramids being chopped down to gather wood and so on.

One day when I am comfortable working in Unity I will do a LD. Right now it is still way too easy to run into something that takes days to sort out. But I'm getting there.

 

The mini LD's tend to be more flexible this one starts 26th March to 2nd April. So you could even throw in an April fools day RTS joke game.

 

Big armies were always an option. You just had to implement your own solutions (e.g. particle systems).

 

EmpireEarth2 +1.5 unofficial patch..

Best underrated RTS ever..and thanks to dr mona lisa who has spent a few years working on the unofficial patch and just late last year got the ingame multiplayer lobby working again..stupid studios relying on third parties like gamespy for network lobbies.

I play it just about every week with friends coop vs hard/harder ai, to think I never knew about the game back when it came out and only played C&C and Age of Empires.. now I look back and think this game was way before its time, pretty advanced features built in.. none of that watered down consolized crap design. Sadly the later versions of the game went to crap and they lost sight of what made best version of its franchise so good. It looks way and plays way better than HD remakes of AoE etc aswel.

Anyway only has 1 problem, it was never made for multithreading, so with thousands of units on the map responsiveness can get laggy, this on todays hardware, I can't even imagine the lag it had back in the day playing with that many units.

Would love to see it recreated 1:1 with multithreading support.. it makes ashes of singularity look some sort of lame m$ sponsored dx12 tech demo with piss all actual gameplay.

 

While it's a nice idea, the only one of these challenges I've actually succeeded was an on site with a team style jam.

 

Not to hijack the thread, but am I the only person who thinks RTS is a terrible genre? Only "tower defense" is worse. C&C was great but it kind of went downhill from there, and mobile put the nail in the coffin. (Partly I'm doing the Grumpy Old Man thing here because the genre permanently wrecked the term "strategy" by associating it with click-spaz gaming that is more tactical than strategic...)

 

There is pretty much a strategy game out there to cater to any sort of tastes. You might just have to look outside of competitive Starcraft.

I personally enjoy playing strategy games. Developing them is another thing. The games are massive undertakings.

 

I love strategy games as well, but in my opinion "real time" and "strategy" are polar opposites, that's all I was grousing about.

 

Then you should try slow-paced RTS instead of usual pacing (like starcraft). Or, well, create your own you'd like!
Tycoons are RTS too

As of topic... It's impossible to make a really good strategy game in that time. Most likely it'll be filled with copies of starcraft/battlezone2/whatever else existing already as you just can't make anything really good in that short amount of time. The best gameplay-wise I can think of would be something based on cellular automata(but there are tons of such rts already).

 

I strongly disagree. I remember all the old C&C style RTS games to be mostly "build a big army, overwhelm your enemy, rinse and repeat". I much prefer the tactical depth and complexity of a Men of War Assault Squad 2 or Call to Arms. Or if you prefer bigger picture strategy and large scale battles, try Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. I also quite like Total War Attila, but judging from the steam reviews that is the "filthy casual" one out of the series.

 

I do think the S (Strategy) in RTS should be a T (Tactics).

Or maybe it's the R as they are not Realtime. Show me a factory that can build a Odin Mech in a matter of seconds (well OK a minute or two). Or mining operations that can extract in seconds what would take months in the real world.

So maybe the R should be H for Hyper.

RTS -> HTT

Maybe you could do an april fools RTS that actually uses more realistic time scales, "Mining 1000 tons of ore, ETA 1 year 8 months, Boss!"

Want a full trained new soldier let's see about 40 weeks + 18 years (inc 10 weeks basic) +- a month, that's about 19 years.

They also never seem to use money.

And how quickly do they produce new Biological Units in those Barracks, or Orcs in those huts, that can't be realistic!

Oh wait a minute they are games made for FUN! Silly me!

 

A lot of people don't understand what's the difference and then name both of them strategy...

 

But you do have a valid point RTS games tend to be just a race to build a bigger army and flatten your opponent with sheer weight of numbers e.g. "Zerg Rush"

Mind you it worked for the Normandy Landings, in a way D-Day was a 'Terran Rush' style of overwhelming numbers attacking a technically superior but numerically inferior force (A bit like the Protos).

The battle for Leningrad was a defensive rush strategy in a siege situation, with hordes of Russians thrown at the Germans.

So how could you add Strategy back into the RTS genre that would prevent the Turtle - Build Up - Rush cycle?

And actually in History are there any cases of numerically inferior forces defeating overwhelming odds or turning the tide?

 

Yes, that's exactly how we ended up with the name RTS for these games.

 

And for people who say you can't make an RTS in a weekend...

Here's one I made earlier...



For LD 34 (in 48 hours) I made a simple 2D RTS game (click pic for Games LD page).

Which is a simplified version of my earlier British Expeditionary Force LD 21 entry (which had 3D Units and used physics, and a VCR control panel?? )



(... does mean drum roll please right??)

 

OK I'm working on an RTS framework based on the Tanks (networking) and my previous Tanks AI challenge example using 5.4.

Going for minimalist RTS features in the hope it will encourage some people to try Unity, wish me luck.

 

Sorry, lost track of this thread (seems the forum doesn't always notify of replies?) Perhaps most famously:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

That was a defeat, they just had a terrain advantage in the form of a choke point that amplified their shield wall formations defensive value. They did manage a heroic blocking action that was circumvented and eventually overrun.

 

OK made a tiny bit of progress on my RTS...



Once I have a basic RTS working the plan is to release it as a very basic starting point for other Unity developers, if there is any interest.

 

OK It's done, and the whole project can be downloaded as a package.

So if you would like to build your own RTS this weekend with Unity please do, maybe my project can give you a head start.