map size and multiplayer (suggestions, points, etc)

[sabin-x]

i was going to explain all my suggestions here, but instead ill just list them and let you take it or leave it from your own thoughts.

-very, very large map size... so big you can get lost in it

-at least 4-8 player multiplay--1 on 1 would get boring quick (maybe you already covered this somewhere and i just missed it, if so tell me)

-map sizes that will appropriately fit a full multiplayer game, and still allow for comfort zones.

-slow gameplay is essientail for being able to emphasize and apply STRATEGY over shock-wave rushing



id also like to comment on a little doubts people have been having on STALEMATES. so far ive seen a conclusion come to that if there are no alterior motives in multiplay other than just destroying your opponent, combat will become mindless, quick rushes... or both players will dig in with good defenses and protect themselves.

having played warhammer 40k, which has a similar game concept, but is a table-top strategy game... i know otherwise. Battlescape will be a RTS, yes. but Battlescape will not be the "winning formulat RTS" that has been used and reused by everyone and their mother. it focuses on battle. everyone having experience in those "recource gathering" type RTS's would have to have an adjustment period. players going through this period would indeed rush, or dig themselves in. but after playing the game for a while, these same players would start to realise what works and what doesn't. you cant dig yourself in and win. you normally cant rush and win. when you have at least two players playing against eachother after they have adjusted to the concept of the game, they will start playing in a more logical way... that being building their army in a way that allows them to attack and defend. and of course they'd realise they cant just turtle themselves in and win.

... man that was longwinded, sorry. anyhow thats how a lot of warhammer 40k games go. players wind up maneuvering more than turtling in or rushing. sure they might have a small defense, or a strong point, but they also have at least some type of unit that is maneuvering around the field, trying to get at the enemy.

as long as the game is properly balanced, and there is enough selection to keep things fresh, STALEMATES shouldn't be a problem. of course a change of pace with objectives is always fun... but it shouldn't be a crutch that the game leans on in order to get the multiplayers to attack eachother.

edit: allright, i just thought of this after reviewing the post. in this sort of game, it will be VERY easy to see defeat coming. after a certain point, someone could have a large amount of troops left, but know from the damage they have taken that they probably will not win the match. and then they straight up quit. this would NOT be fun in my opinion.

it would be nice to give the players some reason to stick it out until the very end. i dont know exactly what that would be, and if you could find something, you'd blow my mind.

another thing to consider is "unit experience". if you allowed players to play "official" games that sent periodic data to a master server and kept track of which units are still alive and which have died, and how much experience each unit has, it would give players at least an excuse to try retreating their troops out of the zone/area/map/whatever. experience would also give units a very minor advantage over a long period of time. giving the advantages an exponential curve would be a way to keep players from having "uber" units.

anyway, thats my more 2 cents.

-sX