So I'm thinking of making a strategy game, and I just wanted some feedback on a few design ideas that could completely change how the game is played;
1. Turn based, completely. When it's one players turn the enemies units and controls are completely turned off. Like Pokémon.
2. Hybrid based, whilst the player himself can't do anything, the enemy units still function and act accordingly. Units cannot MOVE, since that is a player action, however if you move one of your own units into range they will start firing at it. This is a pretty unique idea in my opinion, I know it makes the game harder in the sense you must strategize (Sp) a lot more on how the outcome of you placing one of your units can effect the battle in hand, and how the timer until the enemies turn can completely ruin everything for you.
3. Real time, completely free control over your base, units and control at all times. The enemy can build things at the same time as you and you need to micromanage a lot harder. Like Starcraft.
Whilst I want the game to be fun, I'm more drawn towards my own idea at the moment because, well I just don't want it to be a clone of another game with my name on it. If you have any other suggestions, I'd appreciate it, or just general feedback on which one you'd prefer to play.
Oct 24 2012, 6:06 am
|
|
Magicsofa
 |
Well it depends, if it is turn based and the map/armies are too big it might take a really long time to finish a turn. I would rather see option 1 or 2, we have all played micromanagement games before and, while fun, I think it would be cool to have a turn based strategy game
|
That's a fair conclusion based on the evidence I provided, but here is a little more;
Bases becoming too big won't be a problem, there's set boundries (Not yet 100% decided on but I have a mockup below) that the player won't be able to build outside of, and turns would be limited via a clock (timer also not decided on, probably something like 120 seconds + (number of turns * 5)) to keep things running smoothly. http://i.imgur.com/wBcII.png | |
I would think #2 would present a bit of a issue unless you take the kind of generic route and add in unit types than could damage multiple units at a time. Otherwise, it'd discourage players to create/move units near an enemy's group.
| |
Is it going to be multiplayer or not? This affects the type you should use a lot. Turn based isn't very fun for multiplayer in my opinion, UNLESS everyone is on the same team, and not fighting each other.
If it's single player, I'm going to hands down say Option 1. If you replicated a system similar to the Fire Emblem series, I would definitely be a player! I love TBSRPGs. | |
I've often designed around simultaneous turns (which are generally implemented with my Phase library). I find it handy for increasing the player count of turn-based games without increasing the time it takes to play.
The idea is that players all make their decisions at once and see the results in the next turn. Giving enough information to form predictions is important. For instance, it might be wise to process unit movement last so decisions made on positions remain consistent. | |
I personally would encourage you to explore your hybrid idea. I like it, and I would honestly play a game that had that. I'd also really enjoy it.
| |
@Kit
Multiplayer, definitly. I'm not smart enough to make a good AI. @AC That's an interesting idea, definitly. I'll add it to my list of things to explore. @Red Thank you, currently this is the method I'm programming, but like I said, I'll explore all possibilities and see which results in being more fun. | |