First Impressions

Hello everyone!


I've been playing RTS all my life, starting with the original C&C back in '95 (I was only 6 then!) I've played just about every RTS thats come out since then and its always been one of my favorite genres. Normally I try to run away from these EA type deals, but Stardock has a great track record so I'm giving them (and in turn Oxide) a chance.


With that, I'd like to start rambling about the game I just played. With no specific order of urgency to any of these things, and all of them are suggestions:


1) Terrain

What can I cross, what can't I cross? This isn't clear in game and is going to cause big issues down the line if this isn't nailed down early on. I believe Oxide's most recent work was Sins of a Solar Empire, which as we all know ?doesn't have terrain because its in space. What made that particular game brilliant was the phase lane system and how that created choke points and capture targets. In other words, it created a simple form of terrain. What is terrain in an RTS game? To me, terrain are the rules of unit movement and positioning. Some of those rules are unchanging, some of those rules are dynamic, and some of those rules are just plain whacky. Some terrain rules apply to select units, and in the best of cases, the player affects terrain.

What any good RTS worth it's salt does, is make it's movement rules clear and keeps them simple, this isn't a turn based game, I don't have the time to debate how the terrain is going to affect my movement, I need to be concerned with the landscape of the battle (more on this later). My problem with Ashes is that it's unclear what is drivable and what isn't. This seems to be a map design thing, and less of a of an engine thing. Looking at the 3 maps Ashes currently has, I'd like to offer the following- Draw, don't Sculpt. With raise terrain brushes it's easy to "sculpt" the landscape instead of designing it. Sculpting the terrain makes it look natural and it flows together well, and provides an element of realism. This is a nightmare for game play, as it makes establishing the high-ground, determining how narrow a choke-point is and so on. Look at starcraft, it's clearly still built as an isometric tile system, with very rigid vertical cliff sides and in turn, a very clear sense of what is and isn't passable. Ashes needs to simplify it's hills, and shorten the edges of the mountain. There need to be more visual clues to show us what marks off a part of the map as a hill or a cliff, and establish a shape that these map elements take on. Take a look at some of the later Command and Conquer games (Generals would work). There is a clear divide between map elements and ramps are ramps.

2) Unit Tiers

I've never seen Unit Tiers add to an RTS. They imply one unit is better than the other and destroy the creative aspect of coming up with interesting tactics. A unit tier tells the player to rush their tech and resources to build the biggest guns. Divide the units into Land/Air/Sea/Giant and let the players determine what units are better.

The other side to this is making units. We should focus on unit roles, and avoid having duplicates. I don't need a tank and a bigger tank, because I'll just build the bigger tank every time. Lets try to build units that fill roles and provide options and determine the price based on how effective they are in the community.


3) Turtling

Didn't you say players affect terrain? That's nonsense! This isn't a god game about terraforming!

From what I've read on the forums, Oxide seems to want to be light on defenses, citing Supreme Commander as an example of how a stalemate game would be the most ridiculous thing. While I agree that the way SupCom handled defense and attrition was poor at best, I feel like the design philosophy for Ashes is far too afraid of defense and turtle tactics. Building walls is fun, and tearing down those walls is more fun. Player defenses are a way to shape the landscape of the battle, by walling off and adding a cost to invading with a certain method. Defense is vital to air-combat as AA guns are the only real way to make a part of the map a no-go for a bomber

"So allow me to address the anxiety underlying your concerns"

Where did SupCom go wrong and what makes turtling lame? Defenses are too complicated, take to long to build, and take to long to overcome. SupCom's walls were too much of an investment, and were made worse by SupCom's superweapon system. If you could keep your opponent at bay, it was just a matter of waiting until your superweapon was ready and you could then mop up and win the game. This is lame, Turtles should never be able to win the game sitting in their base. Ashes allows this, with the Win Point system this kind of behavior is allowed assuming you own more of the map. There is no need to smash the other player's base/army. This should be reworked/slowed down


4) Redoing airpower
Air Power should be fast, furious and hit hard. They should also be made of glass. Air Units should fear anti air units/defenses and approaching them should be futile. Planes need to be squishier and deadlier

5) Unit Design
All the units have roughly the same silhouette with different guns attached to them. It's impossible to read what units are what, and in turn quickly figure out what the other player has. We need the units to look drastically different from one another

6) Remove the Busywork

When I capture a point, I don't want to spend my time clicking and placing resource buildings onto the resource points. It's busywork. Sins had a brilliant system of clicking on the planet to order resource buildings