Creating a Strategy RTS for an RPG

[Ghost of Chaos]

Pretty lengthy I know, but I figured everyone here was educated, and educated people like reading long things (right?).

---An Intro---
I have RPed elsewhere, and have been a member on these forums for a while I think, but I haven't participated in anything. Anyway, I am NOT new to role playing, but the place I came from seems to have been a lot more different than this place, and the community is no doubt different.

Where I came from, every RP was fantasy based, or sci-fi-based, never normal and never straying from those two genres. Also, every RP took place in generally the same setting, had generally the same characters, and generally the same type of organizations, and the community was so small, that everyone was in every RP (generally). Sure, you might say that it was an awful place, but we all wanted freedom, we wanted to be able to do whatever we wanted. But we were a small insignificant community at the very bottom of the forum's index, and had to abide by the Mods rules. The Forum itself wasn't FOR RPing, but rather for Flash Games, except they let us RP in it as well. I often spruced it up, and broke the rules, but nevertheless my RP's always seemed very satisfying to the community there. Of course, maybe that's because my RP's were considered 'different' than others.
---End---

Anyway, I was working on an RP there, but then I was... 'put off' for a little while. Put off as in banned. But don't worry, I didn't do anything bad, and it was for something I did back in 08 or 09.

The RP is one that sets aside the traditional RP elements, and puts in new ones. Players were to RolePlay as Kings, Leaders, Emperors, whatever kind of leader figure they wanted and was in charge of leading their armies to victory in series of battles. However, the game wasn't purely about battles, it was about diplomacy, intimidation, strategy, tactics, and included lots of analyzing of the opponents moves and their army's make-up. But generally, the concept was to lead armies, demolish enemies, conquer towns, grow stronger, and eventually rule the world, or whatever you wanted to do.

Except I ran across some problems. How would these battles work? How would I choose the victor? How would I explain why the victor was indeed the victor? How do incorporate the use of tactics and strategy? Well, I brainstormed for a while and came up with a form of a 'system' that would determine who won the battle. It all revolved around what type of troops the player sent out into battle, who they were fighting, how long they were fighting, and things like that. The system also allowed battles to be 'stand-offs' and allowed for the use of negotiation.

Basically, there were three different types of troops. These troops were divided into two subgroups each, so that there were two types of footmen, two types of archers, and two types of cavalry. Each unit was good at one thing, but bad at two other things, so that way each unit was balanced and had to be used accordingly against the enemy. Each town under your control had access to 5 slots, and each slot could be assigned a specific unit type called 'Legions'. A Legion was just a very small army of that specific type of troop, so if you assigned one of your 5 slots as 'Swordsmen' then that city would contain a small Legion of Swordsmen. Now, each town had 5 slots, so that meant you could assign 5 different Legions to your towns, which in turn would make a full-sized army.

If someone wanted to engage in battle, the two armies would march to the outskirts of the town, and form camps at opposite ends of the battlefield. Camps were safe-havens, and could not be attacked, this was were garrisoned troops and the leader stayed at before and during the battle. Battles themselves would not begin until one side sent in one or more Legions to the battlefield. BEFORE a battle begins though, the leaders may discuss possible ways to avoid a battle, such as retreating, allying, or whatever they wanted to do; if they could not decide, then a stand-off would persist, and would not go away until one side attacked or retreated. Sometimes, battles may be won on intimidation.

When someone attacked though, a battle would begin. Basically, as the leader, you would determine what Legion(s) you want to deploy to the battlefield. The enemy in turn would then deploy his own Legion(s) to the battlefield. You would then retaliate by making units retreat back to your camp (if the enemy sent out a counter-force, although by retreating you would not be able to use these troops again in this battle), send in more units (such as your own counter-force), or by micromanaging the troops on the battlefield (ordering specific Legion(s) to attack specific enemies, as long as they were already on the battlefield to begin with). If you successfully micromanage a Legion to counter the enemy Legion, then you would eliminate the enemy's opposing Legion entirely. Because of this, it is important to have diverse armies, and to make sure you deploy the correct Legions at at the right time, and to make sure analyze the opposing armies very good. Made you' stay one step ahead' during a battle.

[Entity of Sin]

Okay, this is probably one of the best ideas I've seen in a very long time in innovating parts of roleplay and how to conduct battle and place limits on a nation's army in any one single location.

Definitely go further into detail with this man. It has potential and I'll definitely see what I can do to help.

[Ghost of Chaos]

That's... fairly awesome to get such a good reply on this. I figured most people would not welcome it considering it deviates strongly from the original RP elements and guidelines.

Nevertheless, if I ever get ready one day, I may consider doing this. It would be super-hard to run though, but I'd be up for the challenge.

[Entity of Sin]

Ghost, I linked this thread in Gateway Chat today and there was a couple people who said negative things about the idea. This is what I have to say about them and I'll just leave it in this thread. :)

The thing you'll need to understand is that there is always going to be some asshole in any community you're in that will be like that. It shouldn't discourage you from moving forward with an idea. As long as you make the idea really simple and easy to understand, it will make it easy to manage and run. I speak from experience on this and try not to get discouraged my friend.

A nice example of what I'm talking about is some of the projects that I've been working on. Right now I'm working on a podcast show that has been tried previously by two members of this site. One of them did it as a live stream and it didn't become popular and the other didn't have the time to even start it. There have been some positive feedback from people on it but I know there are some that think it's a waste of time. Don't get discouraged man. You're always going to run into obstructions that try to prevent you from moving forward and being successful with whatever idea you're trying to accomplish.

Aside from my podcast I want to start for this site, the other project I've been working on and off with is a board game. So it's easy to become unmotivated cause of a few negative comments but that is no reason or excuse not to move forward, ignore those assholes that don't understand your vision, and show them through example how fun your ideas can be.

This idea is innovative and not a lot of members of the community like fresh and innovative concepts that can possibly offer new experiences for roleplaying. It's sad really when that's the general mentality of most people on Gateway. Just don't let it get to you and keep working on your ideas. There are always going to be those that can understand what you're trying to accomplish and will give it a chance.

The saying, "If you build it, they will come." applies to your idea. So why not make it?

[Ghost of Chaos]

What negative things did they say about it? I want to know so that way I can improve on my idea and make it better. That is, if the things they said apply to critiquing.

That's what I thought anyway, that most people won't not like it cause it is different.

Nevertheless, I wrote the code, found everything out, and will post it one day when I have the time.

[Entity of Sin]

That it's redundant. I think that's because you named the thread "Strategy RTS" and they can't get past the name of a thread or something. The things people make negative comments about is kind of amazing. No one actually said anything negative about the actual idea. That's what's humorous.

I didn't know if it was a code thing or not. I thought you made some kind of system or something that people could follow without the use of code, large equations, or dice roll. Might want to convert the system into something like that rather than the use of code.

Code scares people. Just throwing that out there.

[Ghost of Chaos]

'Redundant'? Hmm...

Oh yeah, and you miscomprehended the 'code' part. When I said I wrote the 'code' for the RP, I don't mean a long equation or mathematical or dice rolls or anything to that matter. It just means I went ahead and wrote the entire RP on the forums, but I did not post the RP, I copied and pasted the text onto a word editor on my computer and saved it, storing it away on my PC until a later date. In this way, by copying the text, I also retain the bold, italicize, underline, etc tags that I used for it. This is the 'code' of my RP, so that way I can copy and paste it into a thread on these forums and not have to worry about going back and bolding everything again you know?

No, combat is NOT a code; I HATE games that calls itself strategy and relies on the use of dice rolls... if the game is strategy why does it incorporate the players luck? You know what I mean? For example, 'Risk' has a cool overall concept; you lead your army across the board in order to conquer the world; loved that idea; but I hated that battles relied on dice rolls... made me mad.

My combat system relies on tactics, strategy, control, and micromanagement. It's like in an RTS game really. Every one has access to specific troops, and each troop has their strengths and weaknesses. During a battle, you have to exploit these strengths and weaknesses, and counter the enemy troops. You have to send in the right troops at the right time, provide some protection for them, retreat when you know it's right, etc. Not only that, but you can trick the enemy into sending out troops, and in that way counter his troops and eliminate his army. It all has to do with staying one step ahead of your enemy.

So no 'code' is in my RP, winning battles is determined on how well you deploy and micromanage your troops.

--------------

An example would be like... sending in Pikemen to combat his Cavalry because Pikemen have an advantage over Cavalry, that kind of stuff. Truthfully, I intended to put in Formations that would allow certain units to defend against their counters, although they would become weaker against others. I also intended the terrain should affect the battle, like forested regions would not allow Cavalry, and watery/marshy/snowy regions would not allow heavily equipped soldiers. But I figured this was WAY to complex and complicated to handle and lead as an RP.

I one day dream of creating a Real-Time Strategy game.

---------------

Edit: Here is a nice read:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... erScissors

[Entity of Sin]

Alright, well you should try and make the roleplay and everything and see if people would interested in doing it by making an interest check thread for the roleplay to see if people would be interested in joining it.

[Ghost of Chaos]

Oh... so did I break a rule by posting this here?

Whoops... sorry?

[Entity of Sin]

No, you didn't. Don't worry about the rules cause you haven't done anything wrong.

[Alphadean]

Roleplaying can be essential to an RTS, but not integral. This might give you some issues in the long run. What you're going to have to do is make the RP aspect as important as the strategy aspect. Perhaps you as the moderator will award bonus points that can be spent during the combat to help tip the scales one way or another. Even better or maybe a little more complicated have the RP aspect afford you with different type of points.
Subterfuge Points
Infiltration points
Combat Points
Diplomacy Points
and so on...
But if you want to look at an RPG that was diceless, check out "Amber Diceless rpg". This might give you some idea on how to handle your rules.

As far as the game becoming too complicated, just turn terrain and surrounding into simple + or - bonuses. If you have them already factored for each unit (i.e. -4 forrested for calvery) you kinda have it beat before it becomes an issue.