Force Organization

One of the keys to making this game even bigger than TA and Supreme Commander is having a larger number of units spread across a larger playing area. The main limitation of how many units a game can have, and how conceptually large a playable area it can have, is the quality and comprehensiveness of your command and control systems as a player. So I have some suggestions for allowing the player to focus on high-level strategy and encapsulate low-level behavior for individual units, and even small forces.


Grouping Units

Smaller scale RTS games have adopted this convention of using manual, explicit control groups using the number keys 1-9. This works for games where you may only need a few groups of units, but we want to have an arbitrarily large number of such groups, of arbitrary size. Additionally, conventional RTS groups are for ease and speed of selection, and usually confer little to no functional intelligence to your unit group. Due to the scale of the game, a certain level of unit independence is necessary, as the player needs to be able to leave units to fight or execute other orders without continuous supervision.

I propose a system that allows units to be grouped into a functional single force, which then receives and follows orders as if it were a single unit. Instead of selecting all the units in the group and ordering them to attack a target, you order the group to attack, and the group's guiding intelligence acts to assign move and attack orders to the units within the group. So instead of issuing attack orders to every individual unit (there is no real reason to ever do this), you order a larger group to attack a base, and the group sorts out the details of which unit is best at shooting at which target, etc.

A good example of a functional group would be binding a small group of units with a transport. When the group is issued a move order, they units are ordered to load up into the transport, however that is appropriate, and then fly to the target location, and unload.


Classes & Production/Logistics

Unit groups can also be used to facilitate complex production orders. For example, having a group of all the factories in a local area allows the player to give a large number of construction orders very simply. The group of factories is ordered by the player to build 100 of unit X, and the factories in the group evenly distribute their construction orders to finish the job as quickly as possible.

However, having groups can be even more powerful in terms of production. Suppose we have a small, but specific squad composed of a few battle tanks, a few anti air units, an artillery unit, a sniper unit, a couple recon units, and a transport which can carry all these units. We could create a template of this group, acting as a Class which allows the player to create more groups exactly like it. The order "Make 10 more copies of this group" given to a group of factories is very simple, and extraordinarily powerful.

This same system can even be used to minimize tedious micromanagement. Suppose a larger force, composed of multiple squads like the one described above, sustains casualties. This group could easily be ordered to "reform," prompting it to rearrange itself into as many complete squads as possible, with some leftovers. Now almost every unit has transport capability again, with little work by the player. And, even better, the player has a direct count of the force's remaining strength; the number of squads remaining, plus remainder.

There are all manner of things the player can do with a grouping system like this, from automatically creating squads, to distributed orders across a larger group, to reinforcing a group back up to strength by counting which units are missing from the group, to all manner of other possible uses.


Higher Order Groups

While already quite powerful, this exact same system can be used to create higher order groups. Or, groups which contain smaller groups. An army made of a large number of our transport-equipped squads, for example, which can be ordered to move as a single unit. When so ordered, each of its constituent groups is given a suitable move order, prompting each unit to mount up into its specified transport, and in moments the entire army is airborne and en route. This group could also be ordered to be constructed as a unit, and has all the other benefits and possible uses of a smaller group- but is even simpler for the player to control.

Higher order groups can also be used to create complex organizational systems. For example, a Factory group might be a subset of a larger group which constitutes a single Base on the map. The base might include production facilities, defenses, sensors, logistics and economy, and local garrison units, including land and air units tasked to protect the base. When an enemy scout plane is detected on the base's radar, the base scrambles its aircraft to go take it out. When a production order is given to the base, the base delegates it to its factories.

And, just like you might task a Factory group to create an army of a large number of squadrons, you can use the same system to construct template, complex Base groups. By issuing the order to create a Base group to a group of sufficiently capable construction units- with just one command.


Conclusion

I for one find this sort of organization to be profoundly simple and powerful. I imagine it would be a significant amount of work to implement, but I really think that giving literal move and attack orders to individual units does limit the scale at which a player can effectively manage an RTS game. Increasing the player's conceptual management power is the single biggest factor to increasing the scale of the RTS game.

Some short thoughts:

Sounds like an AI-sub-commander. You assign units to the commander of the sub-commander, give him the order and he executes it.

Sounds like the AI commander of the AI-sub-commander mentioned above (Commanderception)

--> I get your idea, but i don't know how hard it is do implement this, but I think its not really necessary (and I'm not a fan of micromanagement nor I have the "skillz" for that. But i think I still could handle it... or I overestimate myself )

I really really like the idea of templates for production and now I hope this finds it's way into the game

I've always wanted to see some sort of chain of command system within a game like this where you can define unit ranks and have a fairly extensive structure then give context-insensitive orders to that specific command structure and they'll work out amongst them which unit is appropriate for the task. Then you could even setup construction structures to automatically put units into x command structure at x rank. You could promote units in the field to define their importance and value. IE if you had a certain low level tank that racked up 30 kills yet somehow managed NOT to die... you say "Hey I like you I want you to be more valuable and less prone to dying" you can promote them up the chain so that they stay back.

It's rather silly... yet would add some interesting life to an RTS game. Not necessarily this one, but just one in general.

Grouping and subgrouping is definitely needed in some fashion or another though.

Unnecessary.

Expound.

I think it is my job to manage this, not the computers.

I like it, the Sub-commanders and commanders over sub-commanders and the templates sounds similar to Hearts of Iron where you could choose to give control of your military by tiers from sections of armies all the way to controlling theaters. It was neccasary because of the scale and that was only one planet, I know the differances before you go there. Also as well correct me if I missunderstood but it sounds like you wanted to be able to have a an action/re-action option for groups or units i.e. 20 bombers are approaching from the North we need to move mobile air units under this bases control to that area to help static AA against it. Or base 5 just got an order for 500 tanks now it needs to split it up between factories for you for the best efficiency.

it's easier to downsize AI assistance than to add it in later. Just have an option for increased UI, and people who are good at micro can take it off.

Personally, I'd love an option to have this, and it would be super amazingly useful. I'm envisioning controlling dozens of armies across several planets at the same time- I'd like a control system that automates stuff like that at a passable (say 80% of full micro, human perfection) level. Micro players would have a big advantage, but it's not good for everyone.

I think an option (I wouldn't make it a different game mode, but as a computer option individually) it would be amazing- we could have our cake and eat it too.

I suppose it boils down to whether you want an RTS game to focus on mechanical skill, such as the speed at which a player can issue optimal move and attack orders to a large number of units all over the map, or on the thought process behind their actions.

Starcraft has the approach that mechanical skill is fun. They require you to manually construct every single unit you build, and because you pay upfront to add to a queue, you are economically penalized for being too early, or too late, to construct each one. If you wanted to focus on the thought process instead of mechanical ability to enqueue a marine every 24.5 seconds, then you enable structures to have repeating queues and other such features. In my opinion, this is a tremendous improvement.

Now, if you were to argue that just adding such a feature makes the game easier, then I would agree. If we added such features to the same game, it would make that game easier. But that is not what is happening here. Including features like infinite queueing and other "helpers" frees the player from having to handle that aspect. This means the player has some spare time and attention that they can apply to other things. Now, the problem with staying in the Starcraft paradigm is that there is nothing new added to make the game more challenging to fill the space created in the player's attention by adding infinite queueing.

However, we want to make the scale of the game bigger. We want to have armies that are as large as possible, over as much of an area as possible. Games so large they make Starcraft look like dog poop left in the sun on the huge beach of our battlefields. So the player has more work to do because the scale of the game has increased.

My point is that liberating the player from micromanagement does in fact make the game easier. Provided the game stays the same size. However, if you reduce the amount of player input required by a factor of 10, that frees you to increase the scope of the game by the same factor, and the player's attention will still be absolutely maxed out, and their skill tested to the limit.

I disagree that the AI can do a sufficient job for me that I won't be annoyed at it constantly.

then you would be able to disable it- and laugh at those poor suckers like me that wouldn't disable it :lol:

Seriously, it's never going to equal humans in the best decisions/optimal targeting. But for the majority of people, I think that'd be fine. A toggle on/off would fit everyone...

It would seem that I missed this post before, and I have to say that it sounds a lot like what I'd like to see in this game.....being able to focus on high level strategic goals rather than the details of factories and base construction would be a boon, I think.

Build Templates are a must. (notice period) I love those things. Experimental Ai sub control, interesting, technical implications could be crippling as far as ram.

Awesome idea, I love it!

As I mentioned in another topic; if I tell a group of transports, tanks, shields, and artillery to attack an enemy defence structure, I'd like it if my units automatically go in the transports, that they're unloaded somewhere out of range of the defence structure, that my artillery attack said structure safely, out of range, while my shields and tanks stay near my artillery until said structure is destroyed.

I really like all of the ideas in the OP.

The question comes down to the three levels of war: strategic (the war / the country), operational (the campaign / the theater of operations), and tactical (the battle / the position).

Most tabletop wargames only simulate one level, both to reduce piece count (can you imagine a strategy game -- think WWII -- with individually-rendered squads?) and to sharpen the focus. If PA wants to do everything (a truly "strategic zoom"), it'll need to do intelligent things on the tactical level when you're paying attention to the strategic level.

With the focus on strategy, decisions should probably flow from the top down: I can sit at the strategic level and "attack-move" my army, for example. This would start a campaign (operational) to take a particular part of the planet, or a specific asteroid, or whatever. If I gave no other orders, operational AI commanders should make straight-forward decisions towards that goal.

If I zoom in to that campaign (take the planet!), I should be able to override an operational commander by taking that role myself. Of course, since we're making orders flow top-down, nobody's making strategic-level decisions: existing campaigns continue and bases defend themselves, but no new strategic decisions are being made. At the operational level, I can grab squads of units and send them at specific key points -- places I've determined can change the course of the campaign. Exact targets will be chosen by tactical AI lieutenant.

If I zoom in to a particular battle (take the hill!), I should be able to override a tactical lieutenant by taking that role myself. Again, top-down orders means that the campaign is just proceeding by itself, so I shouldn't spend too much time in the details (unless I'm just a click fiend, and feel that it's necessary). At this level, I could choose targets for individual units, perhaps force ability use, etc.

The important thing is that all this happens with existing games -- I could attack move in SupCom, and there's an AI that tells the units exactly how to do that. The suggestion here is that the AI should be segregated into operational and tactical levels, and the strategic level should be entirely player-controlled. If you want to zoom in to a particular battle for total unit control, feel free. The scope of the game should ideally be too large for that to be a sustainable way to play, though: strategy should beat tactics (in this game) any day of the week.

Hackerblinks has explained how this would work from the viewpoint of the player.

From the highest level, you essentially have a few big pieces you can move around, which take a considerable amount of time to construct (as they have many sub-components). "2nd Army, go to planet P" as a command only requires a single order from the player, but might mobilize an arbitrarily large number of units. The player can have as many such forces as they want moving independently of each other, but if you want those units to stick together, and fight together, conceptually it makes sense that you can stick them together and then order them as a single entity at the strategic level.

Groups could also represent their status as a collective. Rather than glancing at a sea of green, yellow, red HP bars, instead the army simply tabulates it all together and presents it to the player in one little panel, i.e. "6/14 Legions, 2/4 Armored Corps" where those names would be player-defined group names, referring to custom groups, with their compositions customized by the player from the ground up. Above and beyond casualties, the entire force can indicate when it is damaged, or if it were running low on missiles, or even missile launcher units, to indicate they need a refill.

If we wanted to get especially tricky and awesome, it would be amazing to implement an even more robust AI that could perform more complex behaviors than movement and status aggregation. For example, the army might count up how many units are missing from its roster and requisition reinforcements from a base you have assigned to resupply it. The map might show an arrow indicating this base is supporting that army. The base would need factories and a contingent of transports under its authority (which it might automatically rebuild to match the desired number if any are lost).

The ability to give these forces behaviors is starting to get into the territory of AI programming. However certain types of behavior are somewhat obvious, such as my example before, with a base detecting enemy units and launching a sortie to attack them. This functions just like a unit detecting an enemy unit with its sensors, and then shooting. The only difference is, the units doing the detecting are not the same as the units getting the kill order. The base is detecting the enemy, and attacking the enemy as if it were a unit. However the base gains its senses from having a radar dish or whatever, and its attack function involves using bombers or ground units, or whatever the player chooses.

Instead of relying on an AI to do this, I would prefer if you could set up plans on the map, assign units to the plans, and then execute them. Does this achieve the sort of thing you're after?

I suggested something like this to Neutrino on reddit shortly after the kickstarter was announced, he liked the idea but observed UI design would be the hard part.

I've been thinking about this idea for years, and over the last few days, and I think I've come up with a solution that would make the interface for plans as first-class entities easy to use.

I'm working on making a drawing to make it easy to understand, and tie it in with all of the other features.