Squad Wars: minigame idea

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster One question, how is this different from your standard RTS? Or am I just not understanding?

You can't build structures, harvest resources, and games last 5 minutes or less. The gameplay is focused on short matches on how you manage your soldiers and how you set them up matters whether you win or lose. Depending on feedback, I'll wait to see how much in detail people want to customize their squad and continue with the design.

I appoligize for the missing details but I'm trying to focus more on the gamemodes than the entire game design right now. I realize people like to associate ideas to other games to compare but I ask that you just take what is given (imagine the rest if you need too) and help give feedback on a game design that doesn't fall into a genre niche. Thanks

I think it's a great idea. I especially like the pursuit game.
I did think of something similar with a small 'arena' where 2 squads battle it out. Similar top-down perspective where you play a single character who gives orders to the other squad members but you don't control them.
e.g. Click Assault-team1 click house, click assault.
Click fire-team1, click house, click covering fire.
or
Click Sgt Jones, click flank-left, click enemy.
The AI would then check the best way to do it, go as far as they can but then stop when either the situation changes or they can't go on and report back.
e.g. Sgt Jones spots another enemy preventing him flanking.
Each squad member is able to look after themself (find cover, return fire etc)
and act within their own fire-team.

For research purposes I'd suggest playing Laser Squad Nemisis

Its an excellent game.

Quote:

Original post by tonyg I did think of something similar with a small 'arena' where 2 squads battle it out. Similar top-down perspective where you play a single character who gives orders to the other squad members but you don't control them. e.g. Click Assault-team1 click house, click assault. Click fire-team1, click house, click covering fire. or Click Sgt Jones, click flank-left, click enemy.

Yes, this is pretty much how I envision giving orders except instad of choosing a fire-team you would choose individual soldiers. Squads would probably be a small 5 man team or so you don't have as much to manage. As far as when you issue orders, I was thinking that the AI chooses how to move, ie move to the next barrel to take cover or run out in the open. Until I get some feedback on question 3, I'm not sure if players will like having limited control.

Quote:

Original post by HAM For research purposes I'd suggest playing Laser Squad Nemisis Its an excellent game.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out after work today.

EDIT: Alright, I've downloaded and played the demo. The gameplay is interesting and has given me some thoughts. I do not plan on making the game turn based though like laser squad nemisis. I see how making it turn based allows for more fine tuned actions so I will have to keep the orders that can be sent from the player interface neat and simple. I'm thinking that if I limit the number of players you can have in a squad, it will simplify the amount of clicking you have to do do thus making planning still effective rather than how fast you can click in realtime.

I was dissapointed that the demo didnt allow you to customize your personal units other than picking which one you want.

[Edited by - Rasm on August 9, 2005 9:40:53 PM]

3) How much control would you like over building your squad to accomplish these game modes? (ie selecting equipment or hand picking people with stats based on physical / mental abilities..)
[/QUOTE]

I'd prefer to handpick people from a squad with phys/ment abilities but also a preferred role (i.e. scout, grenadier, support etc) who have a tweakable predefined weapon load.
I even thought of having a management side where you buy/sell players a bit like SpeedBall.

sounds cool, I would let the commander be in game to give it the extra element of protecting the commander.

you could allow the commander to be a playable character but as soon as it dies then the game is over.

also would you use a fog of war type effect or would the player be able to see the whole battlefield from the start?

The thing I like most about this idea is it is a casual game thats not a puzzle game aimed at women. seems to be the norm in casual games at the moment.

Quote:

Original post by tonyg I'd prefer to handpick people from a squad with phys/ment abilities but also a preferred role (i.e. scout, grenadier, support etc) who have a tweakable predefined weapon load.

This is one way I could go. Personally, I prefer picking all the nitty gritty details also but wanted some feedback as to what others would think. How nitty gritty though is the key. The most complicated that I could think of is if you personally create a soldier, named him and he had basic stats such as, physical strength, stamina, self control, etc, and you would be given a certain number of points to allocate. So basically if you wanted a soldier to be a sniper, you'd put points into self control etc... With stats you could have the soldier miss a shot because he is afraid or barely escape a blast with quick reflexes etc.

On the other hand, I could design it so there are preset people (ie Rainbow 6 series) where you choose from a list of people who are better at (assualt, sniping, demolition, etc) and you choose what equipment they carry. Guns could be configured which ammo and which side arms grenades, health kits, etc...

Yet another way is if you create just a generic class for each type of soldier such as laser squad nemesis. Depending on which gamemode you play, you could select soldiers for that task. It would be take away from the character creation but it would also focus the game more on combat than micromanagement. I guess this is total preference but I'd like to know what people think.

Quote:

Original post by tonyg I even thought of having a management side where you buy/sell players a bit like SpeedBall.

I'd like to hear about it. It reminds me of professional athletes and how they are traded.

Quote:

Original post by Themonkster sounds cool, I would let the commander be in game to give it the extra element of protecting the commander. you could allow the commander to be a playable character but as soon as it dies then the game is over.

In laser squad nemisis there was a commander also. I'm not sure what he did because it wasnt covered in the tutorial but I did notice he costed more points to deploy so I assume he has some special ability. Now depending on if people think adding stats to the game is beneficial, I could make the commander not only boost the morale of the soldiers (causing them to perform better) but the soldiers could respond quicker to orders (ie you give commands to the commander and he barks out orders to the rest of the squad).

Protecting the commander could make a pretty good game mode also. I suppose it could fit under attack/defend but with a real person as a target. [evil] The commander could also be a more powerful soldier and thus you may want to actually use him to kill the other commander instead of hiding him in the farthest corner of the map.

Quote:

Original post by Themonkster also would you use a fog of war type effect or would the player be able to see the whole battlefield from the start?

There will be a fog of war so to speak. I haven't decided whether to make it total (ie everything is black, to see anything a unit must be in the area with appropriate field of vision) or partial fog (ie the whole map can be viewed but enemies can only be seen when they are in your site range). I think adding one of these is better than making the whole map visible because you would have to think more stategically. Things such as flanking, estimated guess as to the enemy squad location and so forth adds to combat realism. You would have to take chances, such as deciding to split the squad up to cover the most ground or stick together incase theres a firefight.

Quote:

Original post by Themonkster The thing I like most about this idea is it is a casual game thats not a puzzle game aimed at women. seems to be the norm in casual games at the moment.

I'm glad you like the idea and thanks for posting. I'm a bit concerned now about the use of minigame in my post title and description. I guess for the majority of people it means some sort of puzzle game. I kind of picture it a game that doesnt last long or is part of a complete game.

Please keep your comments and questions coming and thanks to those that have replied.

I definetly like the idea of having a combat type game as a minigame. Because I have small periods of time to play video games, I like the idea of having something only 3-5 minutes long so I can bail out at any time, and it not have a huge effect. Minigames are also addicting, in case noone noticed. :]

I would say that this is a really good idea. As to game modes, I have a couple of my own to add.

Mobile Assault:
One team is given a mobile assault command module, or something of the like. They have a minute to deploy it, wherever they like. The enemy team is blinded totally at this point, for example playing a minigame type thing while they wait. After the first team deploys the command module thing, a countdown timer is started. The other team now has until the timer hits zero to attack the module. Kinda like hide n seek.

Terrorist hunt/capture:
Two teams; they are not friendly, they are opposing each other. There are also computer opponents that are terrorists holding an objective, or some such. The two human teams have to capture the objective, whatever it happens to be. But remember, they are not cooperating in this effort. They start at two different drop off poitns, and have to attack the objective. After one has made it to the objective, the other team can follow their trail and retake the objective. It would become a fight for the neutral objective after all the terrorists are gone.

Infiltration:
This one is a bit different. You have two teams. One team is in control of a building(call this team A). They control all the security aspects of that building, including where everything is placed. The team(s) against them have to infiltrate this building, bypassing or eliminating their defenses, and get to the objective(call them team B.) Then they have to make it out alive. After they start away with the objective team A is activated and spawns at the original Team B spawn. The building now becomes team B's spawn, and team B has to take the objective out before a time limit.


Thats all I have for right now, but I would definetly play this game.

My "Ideal RTS" concept, which I have taken to calling a Real-Time Tactics simulation concept, is exactly like this except that I give you a physical avatar and restrict your information to the things your avatar has access to (this includes electronic communications, fortunately!)

Quote:

Original post by Rasm 1) What do you think about playing a game where the objectives change and general game modes last about 5 minutes or less? Explain what you think is bad/good about it.

I love it! I don't have the time or attention span to play lengthy and sustained campaigns in a single mode of ever-accruing tactical data. Give me encounters with set parameters, then throw me a curve frequently. A tremendous upside is that it makes this sort of game accessible to the casual gamer, a market I expect to continue growing.

Quote:

2) From a designers standpoint, what do you think would be an interesting game mode that requires proper coordination of a team to accomplish a task?

Any task that involves coordination with another squad. The more other squads, the merrier! (Think about it: the landing at Normandy was effectively a large number of coordinate squads, each with a set sub-task in the larger objective.)

Quote:

3) How much control would you like over building your squad to accomplish these game modes? (ie selecting equipment or hand picking people with stats based on physical / mental abilities..)

I think this should be fairly minimal. Rather than the ability to pick your squad before each mission, Navy SEALs-style, give me the ability to request more men/equipment and furnish it to me as it becomes available and as deemed appropriate by the Home/War Office. This means that I may get more and better men/equipment based on my track record as well as based on how critical my current task is to the overall war effort. Immerse me in the notion that I am playing just a part in a much larger war.

On the other hand, give me total control of my squad. Allow me to promote and demote members, set up hierarchies of authority and delegation and issue orders to any arbitrary grouping down to a pair of soldiers with one designated as "commander" (I'll always issue orders to "commanders").


Disclaimer: A lot of what I've just suggested comes from my own concept, which has been languishing for several months. I didn't intend to try to turn your game into mine, honest! [smile]

[Edited by - Oluseyi on August 10, 2005 10:03:37 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Rasm 1) What do you think about playing a game where the objectives change and general game modes last about 5 minutes or less? Explain what you think is bad/good about it. Quote: Original post by Zero-51 I definetly like the idea of having a combat type game as a minigame. Because I have small periods of time to play video games, I like the idea of having something only 3-5 minutes long so I can bail out at any time, and it not have a huge effect. Minigames are also addicting, in case noone noticed. :] Quote: Original post by Oluseyi I love it! I don't have the time or attention span to play lengthy and sustained campaigns in a single mode of ever-accruing tactical data. Give me encounters with set parameters, then throw me a curve frequently. A tremendous upside is that it makes this sort of game accessible to the casual gamer, a market I expect to continue growing.

I agree, I find myself launching quake 3 instead of battlefield 2 just because I don't have much time and want to play something. I wanted to confirm that others do this as well.

Quote:

Original post by Zero-51 Mobile Assault: One team is given a mobile assault command module, or something of the like. They have a minute to deploy it, wherever they like. The enemy team is blinded totally at this point, for example playing a minigame type thing while they wait. After the first team deploys the command module thing, a countdown timer is started. The other team now has until the timer hits zero to attack the module. Kinda like hide n seek.

Hmmm... this is a good idea. It sort of reminds me of counterstrike's place bomb mode, except for of course, you place it anywhere. I'm not sure blinding the player is a good way to end the game. As you describe blind, I picture the screen turning white and then dying when the other squad shoots them because you can't see. As a player I think I'd rather a) just die (possible explosion) or b) see a 'Game Over' screen. Please correct me if I envisioned this wrong.

I think game modes where you race against the clock are fun as long as their aren't too many. Allow me to tweak your idea and let me know what you think.


Nuclear Meltdown
Two squads (or more?) compete over control of a nuclear device. On start, a random team will be given control of the nuclear device. They can carry it around anywhere on the map and place it (so pick a good spot to defend). Once the nuclear device is placed, a 45 second countdown begins (which is displayed to all squads). When the timer reaches zero, the squad that placed the device is removed (airlifted/teleported?) out of the map and the nuclear explosion goes off killing everyone left behind. However, if a team manages to overcome the squad that placed it, and disable the device, they may gain control of the nuclear device. Now it is their turn to defend until the timer goes off. If you lose your entire squad, you will respawn again after X time (reinforcements anyone?). The one catch is that the nuclear device has a 5, 7, 9 or 10 (yes I'm evil[evil]) minute global timer (to prevent the game from going on & on. also not displayed), that activates each time the device is armed and stops when it changes control. When this silent timer goes off, the person who is in control of the device is destroyed while the other teams escape/survive/(win?).

Quote:

Original post by Zero-51 Terrorist hunt/capture: Two teams; they are not friendly, they are opposing each other. There are also computer opponents that are terrorists holding an objective, or some such. The two human teams have to capture the objective, whatever it happens to be. But remember, they are not cooperating in this effort. They start at two different drop off poitns, and have to attack the objective. After one has made it to the objective, the other team can follow their trail and retake the objective. It would become a fight for the neutral objective after all the terrorists are gone. Infiltration: This one is a bit different. You have two teams. One team is in control of a building(call this team A). They control all the security aspects of that building, including where everything is placed. The team(s) against them have to infiltrate this building, bypassing or eliminating their defenses, and get to the objective(call them team B.) Then they have to make it out alive. After they start away with the objective team A is activated and spawns at the original Team B spawn. The building now becomes team B's spawn, and team B has to take the objective out before a time limit.

These are some nice ideas as well. They could be an improved version of attack/defend. Actually, attack/defend is sort of generic. I think I'd like to remove it an put in specialized attack and defend modes such as the ones you described.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Quote: 2) From a designers standpoint, what do you think would be an interesting game mode that requires proper coordination of a team to accomplish a task? Any task that involves coordination with another squad. The more other squads, the merrier! (Think about it: the landing at Normandy was effectively a large number of coordinate squads, each with a set sub-task in the larger objective.)

Do you mean controlling multiple squads as a player? I've thought about controlling multiple squads but in a realtime game, the more you have to control the less control over individual units you have (micromanagement time). My design already takes into account that squads will be working together. Each squad is controlled by a player and thus a) includes more players in a game and b) allows more coordinated attacks because the player is essentially one squad leader of many. Most gamemodes already include plans for more than just head to head squad action.

A coop normandy(ish) map would be very fun. There would of course have to be some changes to the current game design to allow for this. Read below.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Rather than the ability to pick your squad before each mission, Navy SEALs-style, give me the ability to request more men/equipment and furnish it to me as it becomes available and as deemed appropriate by the Home/War Office. This means that I may get more and better men/equipment based on my track record as well as based on how critical my current task is to the overall war effort. Immerse me in the notion that I am playing just a part in a much larger war.

I really like this idea. This could be a whole other section to the game that would have to be picked apart and designed as well. To make it work, there would have to be entirely new option to the game that allows you to choose a non-minigame type mode. Massive battles with multiple reinforcements would take longer than 5 minutes. This type of game mode would appeal to the players that have more time to play the game and would make them feel like they've accomplished something big in the amount of time they spent.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi On the other hand, give me total control of my squad. Allow me to promote and demote members, set up hierarchies of authority and delegation and issue orders to any arbitrary grouping down to a pair of soldiers with one designated as "commander" (I'll always issue orders to "commanders").

In this other (longer) game mode you could add this as a way for players to know who's in charge of which side. Commanders could have control over anything under them directly (as if they were in their squad with shared vision etc...) but would probably issue commands to the squad leaders most of the time because squad leaders have fewer units to control, thus more time per unit.

If you were to add a heirarchy of authority in the minigame mode, I suppose it would work as well. Depending on the size of the squad though would really determine if this feature is worth it. I originally planned for 5 units per squad but depending on how the interface is designed and when I can see / play the game, I won't be sure if this number is correct. Who know's maybe a player will be able to easily handly 10 or more soldiers.

Thanks again for the replies. Keep'em coming.

Quote:

Original post by Rasm Hmmm... this is a good idea. It sort of reminds me of counterstrike's place bomb mode, except for of course, you place it anywhere. I'm not sure blinding the player is a good way to end the game. As you describe blind, I picture the screen turning white and then dying when the other squad shoots them because you can't see. As a player I think I'd rather a) just die (possible explosion) or b) see a 'Game Over' screen. Please correct me if I envisioned this wrong. I think game modes where you race against the clock are fun as long as their aren't too many. Allow me to tweak your idea and let me know what you think. Nuclear Meltdown Two squads (or more?) compete over control of a nuclear device. On start, a random team will be given control of the nuclear device. They can carry it around anywhere on the map and place it (so pick a good spot to defend). Once the nuclear device is placed, a 45 second countdown begins (which is displayed to all squads). When the timer reaches zero, the squad that placed the device is removed (airlifted/teleported?) out of the map and the nuclear explosion goes off killing everyone left behind. However, if a team manages to overcome the squad that placed it, and disable the device, they may gain control of the nuclear device. Now it is their turn to defend until the timer goes off. If you lose your entire squad, you will respawn again after X time (reinforcements anyone?). The one catch is that the nuclear device has a 5, 7, 9 or 10 (yes I'm evil) minute global timer (to prevent the game from going on & on. also not displayed), that activates each time the device is armed and stops when it changes control. When this silent timer goes off, the person who is in control of the device is destroyed while the other teams escape/survive/(win?).

Ok, I don't think you got what I meant by blinding. I meant that the enemy team was blinded while one team setup the bomb, or whatever it is. Then the enemy team is set off to recover the objective(bomb, command post, what have you..) after it is deployed. I also like your idea. Oh, and any of the ideas I put forth, you are allowed to use or whatever, I don't care. I just want your game to be as good as you can make it.

Quote:

Original post by Zero-51 Ok, I don't think you got what I meant by blinding. I meant that the enemy team was blinded while one team setup the bomb, or whatever it is. Then the enemy team is set off to recover the objective(bomb, command post, what have you..) after it is deployed. I also like your idea.

That would definately make more sense. :p After rereading your post, now that I understand, the mode seems much more strategical now. At least I got another game mode out of not understanding.

Quote:

Original post by Zero-51 Oh, and any of the ideas I put forth, you are allowed to use or whatever, I don't care. I just want your game to be as good as you can make it.

Any ideas you put forth that I use, I will be sure to mention your name in the design. I believe you should get credit for what you do.