Maidens of the Kaleidoscope
~Beyond the Border~ => Akyu's Arcade => Topic started by: Paul Debrion on March 11, 2010, 04:53:31 AM
-
This is a bit of something I wrote on RTS games a while back.
It's a bit unorganized in a few place and by now perhaps out of date when it comes to certain things and there may even be games that already do this, but I thought I'd dig it up for the sake of sparking a discussion.
Strategy generally refers to an overall plan of how a campaign will achieve its objectives and involves things like movements of large groups of units and resource management
Tactics are methods use to solve more specific problems, such as moving melee units to the front and having units with ranged attacks stay back.
The problem:
In real life, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness, these forms of planning are usually handled by different people.
However, the vast majority of Real-Time Strategy games to not differentiate between them, and so there lies one of the oldest problems in RTS games.
Turn-based games usually eliminate the problem by allowing the player really be in many places at once and perform many tasks, and in the case of a few games like the X-Com series, have seperate interfaces for Strategic and Tactical levels of gameplay.
RTS games do not have this luxury however, as the flow of time must keep going consistently.
While it can be argued that this is more realistic because in real life you need to make decisions quickly, this arguement doesn't work very well because in real life these tasks would be handled by a chain of command consisting of several people each handling different levels of micro and macro management. Obviously a lone player doesn't have a chain of command to divide up tasks for him.
What I find surprising is that there has been very little effort by the developers of RTS games to provide an effective solution to this problem, a system that would allow a player to fill the gap left by the lack of a chain of command effectively would be a big improvement to the genre and allow for far more strategic possibilities.
Such a system would need to have some level of autonomy in order to carry out its purpose but at the same time be controllable by the player, after all the player is there to play the game, not have the computer play it for him.
In short, one problem I see with modern RTS games that I think can be improved is the fact that such a large number of tasks are given to the player that would otherwise be assigned to completely different people. Of course, this level of control is part of what makes RTS games fun, so taking away that control is not really an option. However, perhaps there could be a system put in place that can accept more detailed instructions from the player and use them to fill in the gaps.
So how can this be fixed?:
Perhaps the first place to start would be with individual unit autonomy. Currently, unit AI in most RTS games is very stupid and understandably so, as they need to be controllable by the player. Any added autonomy would need to be controllable by the player in some way.
In real life, there is the idea of "procedures", "tactics", "doctrines", and "drills". Perhaps a good way to address this problem would be to introduce these into the RTS.
Perhaps a good way to handle this would be to allow the player to create a set of "tactics" or "procedures" that a unit or a group of units can refer to when the player is not available to provide instruction. These "tactics" would consist of ways to respond to commonly occuring situations. For example, "if number of attacking enemy units exceeds [insert number] then retreat back [insert distance]" or "if enemy is present move [insert unit type] [insert distance] towards the enemy and move [insert unit type] [insert distance] away from the enemy". This would allow for traditional direct player control when needed but at the same time allowing the units to react much better to changing situations when the player isn't present using a set of orders defined by the player beforehand.
Such a kind of controllable AI would also be applied to more than just tactics and can be applied to simpler and more repetative strategic matters like resouce management and production. For example, you could give a set of orders that say "make [insert number] of [insert unit type] when [insert resource type] exceeds [insert amount]". Again, direct control would still be possible, but not necessary all the time.
In both cases the point is to have an AI that can follow a set of instructions given by the player, allowing the player to better fill the gap left by the lack of a chain of command. This wouldn't be taking control away from the player as the player still needs to provide instructions and can take direct controll when needed, but this would give the player a way to give a single more complex set of orders that can be carried out multiple times or in response to a given situation rather than having to give many smaller commands at different times.
These commands could be given through a simple interface that includes many commonly used templates where the player can simply insert numbers or unit types, like for example "retreat [insert distance] when enemy group of [insert number] is encountered". Perhaps for more advanced players a more detailed flowchart system can be provided as an option.
With this "chain of command substitute", the gameplay possibilities of Real Time Strategy expand greatly. The outcome of battles can be decided not just by whether one unit does well against another or by numbers, but by more detailed decisions such as how the units take cover or how they move in response to their enemy. Normally such detail in combat would overload the player with tasks to perform, but with a simple AI that can carry out more complex instructions given by the player, it becomes more of a possibility.
Wouldn't this be really difficult to put in a game?:
Many games already have some kind of AI that already works on a system of commands that can be given by either by command line or flowchart. You could take an already existing system like this, simplify it, and give it a UI.
Also, when one looks outside the RTS genre, several examples of these ideas being used in-game that already exist.
There are already a few RPGs out there that use a similar system of tactics to control party members.
Game engines for first person shooters often have events and AI that can be controlled by flow charts. Crytek's CryEngine 2 does this to control events when making custom missions for example.
The point is that the technique is already out there, and re-applying it for this purpose isn't that far fetched.
Wouldn't this be a pain in the ass to use?:
The interface could be made either very simple or very detailed depending on the kind of RTS.
For example, take a game like Starcraft for instance. Obviously for a fast paced game like Starcraft you'd need something quick, easy, and fast. Perhaps one that works on remembered formations that are triggered when an enemy is encountered that could easily be set by the player with a few clicks.
(In reality, Starcraft would NOT be a good candidate for an RTS that includes such a system, I'm just using it in this case as an example to visualize how simple the interface can be.)
Say I wanted the marines to stay bad and the firebats to stay in front whenever an enemy is seen. I could simply select the firebats and move them to the in front and select the marines and move them to the back. I could press a hotkey to bring up a tactics menu, then right click and drag a line in the direction I want the enemy to be relative to this formation. The game then remembers that formation and triggers it whenever that group encounters an enemy. In just five clicks I would have increased the effectiveness of that group by ensuring that the firebats and marines will position themselves accordingly whenever any enemy comes within visual range and have saved myself frantic clicking that would normally be necessary to maintain such an effective grouping in the middle of combat.
This would free up my attention to other things. Perhaps being able to position multiple groups of units? By assigning similar simple formations to other groups of units, you could potentially coordinate a combined attack, using several groups of air units, siege tanks with escorts, and infantry groups like the one just mentioned. Such a feat would normally not be possible in the game due to limitations in the interface, but by introducing easy way to set formations it becomes possible with minimal affect on pacing.
Of course this wouldn't be the only way to do this, it's just a hypothetical example of how such an interface would work. In a professionally designed game with such a system they would likely come up with an even faster and more intuitive interface, perhaps one involving a context sensitive click and drag.
Also, if it is a commonly used set of tactics then it could be included as a preset that would only require a couple clicks. Different sets of tactics could be saved by the player for later use. (perhaps a nice name for frequently used saved tactics would be "standard procedures")
How about a more complicated RTS like Supreme Commander or something else to that effect?
In that case you could go for a more detailed interface that in addition to a streamlined one mentioned above, could also include the option of using a system of flowcharts. A tad closer to what is already included in various SDKs for the purposes of modding except simplified and streamlined for use in-game.
For example, "if enemy comes within 50 meters | then move unit type A 10 meters towards enemy | and unit type B 5 meters away from enemy | and hold position."
Ok, so obviously it would likely be worded a bit more formal than that but you get the idea. The player would not have to type any text commands or anything like that, just select the availables commands in bubbles and tie them together.
Again, for simpler and faster sets of orders the player could simply use templates that consist of senteces have blank spaces in which to type numbers and dropdown menus to insert unit names.
What about rushing?:
What about rushing?
Part of the reason rushing works in RTS games is because of limitations in the interface that prevent the defender from responding quickly enough. In other words, the absence of the ability to set up tactics and procdures beforehand is what often makes this problem in the first place.
In a more realistic scenario, the defender would have likely drawn out a set of procedures to be carried should an unexpected attack occur. A "drill" of sorts that would best utilize any strength derived from the defenders position.
Unfortunately, the idea of the "defender's advantage" is currently non-existant in most RTS games, at least early on, due to interface limitations.
However, by using a system like this establishing a "defender's advantage" becomes possible by setting up a set of defense tactics that would take effect immediately and automatically in the event of an attack and take full advantage of the defender's position. Now the idea of a "defender's advantage" can work the way it should.
Rushing would become more difficult because the rusher would have to come up against a defense that would automatically respond to his attack and has been set up to take advantage of terrain, meaning his forces would be at a disadvantage going in.
Rushing would still be a viable tactic, but the requirements of a successful rush become higher as simply sending the units right on in would no longer be sufficient. Just like in real life, the rusher would have to find a way to nullify his opponents "home court advantage".
Anyway, there it is.
Feel free to discuss, comment, debate, or even bash me for my ignorance. :D
-
Interesting idea.
I guess the question is whether or not developers can streamline this concept for easy use with casual players.
Edit: Relying on tactics and terrain instead of blatant firepower is something that turns me on.
-
I would fucking love a game where you got to program your own AI to help you. (Note to self: have a Robot Battle tournament later)
An idea I had on this subject myself was a game mode where two players work together controlling the same army, allowing multitasking. Say, one person commands units in the field while the other handles macro and defending the base.
But basically yeah, I wouldn't mind playing an RTS that takes the twitch out of the game.
-
Even though such a system isn't implemented in RTSes yet, I didn't even have to read it in full detail to get something extremely similar to it that already exists:
FFXII's Gambit system. It allows you to "program" simple instructions for your party that their AI will follow, an example of a Gambit here, for fighting Yiazmat:
1. Ally: Any - Raise
2. Ally: Any - Bubble
3. Ally: Vaan - Decoy
4. Ally: Vaan - Reverse
5. Ally: HP < 50% - Curaja
6. Foe: Status = Reflect / etc. - Dispel
7. Foe: Status = Regen / Berserk - Dispel
8. Foe: Party Leader's Target - Attack
-
Interesting idea.
I guess the question is whether or not developers can streamline this concept for easy use with casual players.
Edit: Relying on tactics and terrain instead of blatant firepower is something that turns me on.
Indeed, right now it's pretty much either firepower or "rock-paper-scissors" with units that decides the outcome of most battles.
Even though such a system isn't implemented in RTSes yet, I didn't even have to read it in full detail to get something extremely similar to it that already exists:
FFXII's Gambit system. It allows you to "program" simple instructions for your party that their AI will follow, an example of a Gambit here, for fighting Yiazmat:
1. Ally: Any - Raise
2. Ally: Any - Bubble
3. Ally: Vaan - Decoy
4. Ally: Vaan - Reverse
5. Ally: HP < 50% - Curaja
6. Foe: Status = Reflect / etc. - Dispel
7. Foe: Status = Regen / Berserk - Dispel
8. Foe: Party Leader's Target - Attack
Dragon Age also does this this as well, which is why I find it rather unusual that something similar has yet to be included in an RTS.
Of course, there is the matter of escalation. If you're going to go PvP then there would probably need to be rules regarding the complexity of tactics and procedures can be used.
It wouldn't always be fun to have the guy who's marines are packing ten pages worth of advanced MOUT tactics getting 10 to 1 kills against your marines. Though such games would certainly be interesting to someone.
-
While I agree that RTS games are flawed by nature by forcing the player to manage battles and economy at the same time, often across the (game) world from each other, I can see why what you propose hasn't been done before.
The level of complexity required to make such a system actually work is probably way more than any of us can imagine. For example, let's use your "retreat XXyards from enemy stacks 200% larger than own".
This little feature would probably work fine in a game like supreme commander, where units can often rotate their guns and fire in the opposite direction that they are moving. But say your game doesn't have such units. You'll inevitably result in your troops running away from enemy troops which so happen to move faster, with the AI t hat says 'engage enemy stacks my own size or less', and you'll have your entire stack wiped out without even firing back.
Maybe you think you can prevent such issues with a safety mechanism that says only retreat if you CAN retreat from the enemy. That however, isn't always the case. Sometimes you want to retreat even though you don't move as fast. Big bulky, expensive tanks that can take a beating could be one example, same for artillery.
Then there is the problem with grouping. How do you determine what makes a group? Anything within 10 yards of each other? All units with the same weapon? Same speed? You wouldn't be able to set it up individually because that would be too time consuming on the player's end, and even if it wasn't, you'd result in conflicts like 1 unit that says automatically group up with other footmen, and another unit that isn't a footman that says automatically group up with anti-air (and both are anti air).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea or whatever, but I think you need to think about how you can break such a system, it's not hard. Then you might think of how you can fix that broken thing, but then you think how you can break it still, and so on. Eventually you get this MOUNTAIN of things to make the system work as desired, and you probably end up with the player having to micro the system even more than they currently do already!
I personally think the best attempt at fixing the problem you mentioned was done by sins of a solar empire. It's a RTS that is EXTREMELY slow on the military side of things (quite average on the economical side). So, for example, 2 equally matched units do not kill each other in 5 seconds like your typical RTS, instead it takes like a minute. Flying from one end of the map doesn't take a minute, it takes 10. Hell, just travelling from one side of your "town" to the other takes a few minutes. It might sound boring but it's not. Because you have more than enough to do on the economical side, and due to slow travel times, the player is actually encouraged to split their armies up when attacking rather than mobbing some poor victim with virtually everything you have. Because if you get attacked by another player at the same time, you can NOT just retreat back to base and defend, it'll be clobbered by the time you get there (travel time got hit by the slomo bat harder than combat DPS). You wont win or lose battles because you clicked some caster unit's spell 0.5 seconds sooner than the enemy, etc.
Part of your problem IMO is easier solved by making your game require less "clicking speed" as everyone knows is a big issue with RTS games. Solve the clicking speed problem and you probably solve like 80%+ of what you are talking about.
Personally I think the idea of having caster units that don't intelligently auto-cast EVERYTHING they can cast properly is retarded, totally makes the clicking speed problem worse. I don't know why they keep making RTS games have such units. I thought it was good of warcraft 3 to introduce autocasting, but most spells still did not autocast, furthermore the ones that did were so stupid. ZOMG IM UNDER ATTACK BY 1 PEON, autocast bloodlust on the whole army!!! (note I did not like warcraft 3).
-
The autocast problem could be solved the way you say, Ghaleon, but that could very easily make them cast the wrong power at the wrong time. Otherwise, you could create single-task autocasting units, who do a specific job but undermine faction differences, which very often come under the form of different unit for task design.
I do agree however that APM is a retarded system to determine the outcome of RTS games and as if in some sort of horrible case of Stockholm's syndrome, any game who reduces the emphasis on high APM is inevitably panned.
-
I forgot to mention:
STOP making RTS games damnit!!! TBS FTW!
-
The level of complexity required to make such a system actually work is probably way more than any of us can imagine.
I think that is a matter of opinion.
This little feature would probably work fine in a game like supreme commander, where units can often rotate their guns and fire in the opposite direction that they are moving. But say your game doesn't have such units. You'll inevitably result in your troops running away from enemy troops which so happen to move faster, with the AI t hat says 'engage enemy stacks my own size or less', and you'll have your entire stack wiped out without even firing back.
Maybe you think you can prevent such issues with a safety mechanism that says only retreat if you CAN retreat from the enemy. That however, isn't always the case. Sometimes you want to retreat even though you don't move as fast. Big bulky, expensive tanks that can take a beating could be one example, same for artillery.
Why would you apply the same tactics and procedures units that have very different capabilities?
You'd be better off using a different set of tactics made to make better use of that unit.
If you absolutely have to move them together then you'd best stick them in sub-groups with their own sets of procedures.
Now if your tactics truly do break, then you can always start clicking again. That option should always be available.
Then there is the problem with grouping. How do you determine what makes a group? Anything within 10 yards of each other? All units with the same weapon? Same speed? You wouldn't be able to set it up individually because that would be too time consuming on the player's end, and even if it wasn't, you'd result in conflicts like 1 unit that says automatically group up with other footmen, and another unit that isn't a footman that says automatically group up with anti-air (and both are anti air).
Again, tactics and procedures would apply to more to groups and not individual units, and sub-groups if need be.
Real life military forces organize their soldiers into groups and sub-groups so that they can use such tactics and procedures and in here the purpose would be the same.
Say for example, you have 8 soldiers and call them a "squad" and then divide them into two "fireteams" of 4 each.
You're tactics for this squad would then consists of two levels, "squad" and "fireteam". Since "fireteam" is a sub-group of "squad", "squad" tactics would be made to use the "fireteam" tactics below them.
For example, you set a formation and a few lines of if-then stating how the "fireteam" should move from point A to point B, let's call this little set "fireteam-move".
Say you have units that can't shoot well while moving, and you want the fireteams to alternate as they advance in a given direction so that at least half is always able to fire on their way from point A to point B, pretty much setting up a classic "bounding-overwatch" or "leapfrog". This is what you would put as a set of "squad" level tactics. Let's call this one "squad-move".
Now whenever you move the "squad", it will use the instructions in "squad-move" to alternate the advancing "fireteams" and whenever it moves a "fireteam" forward as part of this it will refer to the instructions in "fireteam-move".
Now obviously this may not be the best way to move a squad in all situations, so you would more than likely have different versions of "squad-move" that you can use for different situations. For example, now that you have a working "bounding overwatch" set of tactics, you might want a "fire and maneuver" that would be used upon contact with the enemy or maybe even a "defensive peel-off" just in case they run into trouble.
Perhaps you might want to group this squad with a couple others and call it a "platoon", then write a set of "platoon" level tactics to organize and control the use of the "squad" level tactics.
The idea behind this is that tactics and procedures would be in-game equivalent of soldier/unit training that can be set up by the player.
These kinds of tactics would not necessarily have to be set up during a game. Since they are intended to simulate instructions taught to soldiers in training, you'd probably be better of setting these up beforehand.
I forgot to mention:
STOP making RTS games damnit!!! TBS FTW!
Why not have both?
-
I think that is a matter of opinion.
Every post here is a matter of opinion, simply saying that doesn't make mine any more bias
Why would you apply the same tactics and procedures units that have very different capabilities?
You'd be better off using a different set of tactics made to make better use of that unit.
If you absolutely have to move them together then you'd best stick them in sub-groups with their own sets of procedures.
Now if your tactics truly do break, then you can always start clicking again. That option should always be available.
Again, tactics and procedures would apply to more to groups and not individual units, and sub-groups if need be.
Real life military forces organize their soldiers into groups and sub-groups so that they can use such tactics and procedures and in here the purpose would be the same.
Say for example, you have 8 soldiers and call them a "squad" and then divide them into two "fireteams" of 4 each.
You're tactics for this squad would then consists of two levels, "squad" and "fireteam". Since "fireteam" is a sub-group of "squad", "squad" tactics would be made to use the "fireteam" tactics below them.
For example, you set a formation and a few lines of if-then stating how the "fireteam" should move from point A to point B, let's call this little set "fireteam-move".
Say you have units that can't shoot well while moving, and you want the fireteams to alternate as they advance in a given direction so that at least half is always able to fire on their way from point A to point B, pretty much setting up a classic "bounding-overwatch" or "leapfrog". This is what you would put as a set of "squad" level tactics. Let's call this one "squad-move".
Now whenever you move the "squad", it will use the instructions in "squad-move" to alternate the advancing "fireteams" and whenever it moves a "fireteam" forward as part of this it will refer to the instructions in "fireteam-move".
Now obviously this may not be the best way to move a squad in all situations, so you would more than likely have different versions of "squad-move" that you can use for different situations. For example, now that you have a working "bounding overwatch" set of tactics, you might want a "fire and maneuver" that would be used upon contact with the enemy or maybe even a "defensive peel-off" just in case they run into trouble.
Perhaps you might want to group this squad with a couple others and call it a "platoon", then write a set of "platoon" level tactics to organize and control the use of the "squad" level tactics.
The idea behind this is that tactics and procedures would be in-game equivalent of soldier/unit training that can be set up by the player.
These kinds of tactics would not necessarily have to be set up during a game. Since they are intended to simulate instructions taught to soldiers in training, you'd probably be better of setting these up beforehand.
First off, we both agree that some rules are more for groups and some are more for individual units, using one example to counter a point for the other doesn't make what I say false or wrong.
Real life military has a chain of command, where each person up the chain is responsible for bigger pieces of the picture, and less involved with micro management yes. However, each "node" in that chain of command has a human being doing the thinking. Now I normally don't support the whole "AI will never be able to compare to a human" excuse when a game features poor AI. But I *CAN* tell you with actual experience, that making AI good is a *LOT* more work than anybody inexperienced anticipates.
Let's say you have an attack force of archers, footmen, and knights. You want them all grouped up because each of them individually has a big gaping weakness to some other unit. Think of the number of rules needed for SIMPLE movement.
1: You want them to move together when you're just travelling, so that they can support each other during an ambush. Player sets them as a group to "march together".
2: You probably do NOT want them to move together when running from a bigass army that will steamroll them, why make the knights die just because the footmen are slow?
3: You probably do NOT want them to move together when raiding a town, chasing down workers, etc.
4: You probably DO want them to move together when attacking non-threatening enemy forces along the way to a destination, or else you'll have units drawn out into ambushes that you could otherwise defeat as a group.
I can write down hundreds of situations (yes hundreds) of where you'd want your AI to do some mundane task or another, and you'll STILL end up with the player needing to micro an awful lot.
I'm not saying the idea is bad or dumb, I'm just saying there ARE in fact, good reasons why it hasn't been done (which may not even been the case for many games). Also, have you played supreme commander? Try playing a big map with many computers, even on a good system the game will *CHUG* because of all the AI it has to deal with. I really think that your proposal would only make that issue worse
[/quote]
Why not have both?
Both is fine, it's just that there are like 30 new RTS games for every new TBS game, >=P
-
Every post here is a matter of opinion, simply saying that doesn't make mine any more bias
I was under the impression you were talking about it being complicated just for the player rather than for the developer as well. In this case I was referring to the fact that people have different opinions on what an acceptable learning curve is.
Let's say you have an attack force of archers, footmen, and knights. You want them all grouped up because each of them individually has a big gaping weakness to some other unit. Think of the number of rules needed for SIMPLE movement.
1: You want them to move together when you're just travelling, so that they can support each other during an ambush. Player sets them as a group to "march together".
2: You probably do NOT want them to move together when running from a bigass army that will steamroll them, why make the knights die just because the footmen are slow?
3: You probably do NOT want them to move together when raiding a town, chasing down workers, etc.
4: You probably DO want them to move together when attacking non-threatening enemy forces along the way to a destination, or else you'll have units drawn out into ambushes that you could otherwise defeat as a group.
I can write down hundreds of situations (yes hundreds) of where you'd want your AI to do some mundane task or another, and you'll STILL end up with the player needing to micro an awful lot.
I haven't done much in the way of tactics involving units with melee weapons so I can't comment on this example directly, but I do see what you're getting at.
In this case I probably used an unusually convenient example as a lot of common outdoor maneuvers for modern infantry (such as the example I used) do conveniently lend themselves to instructions like these as they focus more on positioning than anything else and aren't quite as situational so they can be broken down into a lot of "go here".
Indoor/CQB combat and MOUT in very cluttered areas, probably much closer to your example, really would be extremely problematic to do this way since they do involve a lot of maneuvers that are very situational. While you wouldn't need indoor in an RTS, just getting close to the enemy and having a lot of obstacles around would cause similar problems.
I do recall that AI in most tactical shooters can't do close combat well at all and those that can often have a painful amount of things hardcoded to get it to work. Getting it to work in an RTS and make it player-controllable probably would be even harder.
Also, have you played supreme commander? Try playing a big map with many computers, even on a good system the game will *CHUG* because of all the AI it has to deal with. I really think that your proposal would only make that issue worse
This probably would be an issue.
Using AI on such a large scale does a lot to tax CPU and eat memory.
One example being player-written AI scripts in X3: Terran Conflict as adding them does have a noticable performance impact in some cases.
I guess there's always the option of slowing the AI down, but that causes all manner of painful mishap.
-
I remember that in StarCraft there was a mode called Team Melee in which two or more players share control over the same units as a team. This allowed a designated person to focus on econ/research while the other person focused on battles and fighting. With more people on a team, you can further divided the specializations.
Sadly, not many people played this mode, and I don't know why. I think it's because it requires you to know your teammates in advance so you can understand their approach to the game. Otherwise, you'll end up with just one person dictating the other players what to do. Although, this isn't necessarily a bad thing in some cases. But it usually doesn't end well, and having a familiar connection to your teammate always helps. It really is a great feeling when you accomplish something together with your teammates. Each of you are doing your own separate thing and, in the end, all the piece fall into place and your plan succeeds. Glorious teamwork.
-
I remember that in StarCraft there was a mode called Team Melee in which two or more players share control over the same units as a team. This allowed a designated person to focus on econ/research while the other person focused on battles and fighting. With more people on a team, you can further divided the specializations.
...
Oh, DAMNIT. I remembered when I played Team Melee with some people including Carthrat... He totally destroyed us :ohdear: (ZvP).
ALSO...
AI Unit pathing. Thread over.
-
No thanks. Because inevitably an AI will never be as good as the player controlling it. All you'd be doing by automating tasks in that deep of a manner is lower the barrier of entry while not forcing them to really learn anything or improve.
If all you've driven is automatics then you'll have no clue how to drive stick. But if you learned to drive on manuals you can still drive an automatic for conveniece.
Either way Supreme Commander gets about as much automation as I prefer. You can setup complex repetitive orders like ferry routes and building queues and intelligently multiple units and buildings will coordinate with them. But I can shut it all off and do it by hand if I need to. Anything more and you end up fighting the AI rather than your opponent (DoW2 coverseek is a good example).
-
(DoW2 coverseek is a good example).
You mean when they fortify themselves near that fallen tank with their backs facing enemy fire?
-
You mean when they fortify themselves near that fallen tank with their backs facing enemy fire?
Yup, and even after you purposefully put them behind cover some squad members will jump OVER the cover you so carefully micro'ed into.
There comes a point where automation hinders more than helps, and you're spending more time fighting the game interface and the AI than the opponent.