>>15770140
I think that most people who try RTS games go in expecting the unit aspect of an RTS over other games, controling a large amount of varied units in gigantic battles, but they end up feeling a bit let down in the long term once it's painfully obvious that's not what the genre is about at all.
It's really no wonder that turtles appear since that's the second thing they try RTS games for and the one that tends to work the best anyway.
I believe that the problem is the control scheme that works reasonably well for controlling an handfull of units with every detail given by you, but it doesn't scale well at all with more units, more frontlines and more types of units.
It's the control scheme that has to change in order for RTS games to resurrect.
Single Player campaigns are nice, especially since they offer good introductions to each faction if done well, but I think they end up shining because they create a bigger sense of scale, like the war you're fighting isn't just limited to this map, which helps with the idea of "big war, lots of units". They also tend to actually include large battles since the devs can fudge the rules a bit, give you structures for far more resources than usual, bypass the initial build phase and especially having the AI fight you in an interesting way instead of in an optimal way.
Again, I think the controls of an RTS work far better for RTT instead, both in singleplayer and multiplayer. Once you try to scale your army up, the micro gets unbearable, the map won't support it and your oponent will cheese it instead with smaller but more effecient armies that likely won't even let you reach that scale.
This is why I'm actually trying to make my own RTS and eventually put up a prototype in the /rtsg/ to get feedback.
Way I see it, it should be a bit like Dominions where an army is commanded by a general \ leader that you command in turn, telling him to move somewhere or attack a position \ army and he takes every troop assigned to him.
However unlike Dominions, where you queue production of troops and they are added to an army, I'd rather have you tell the game "I want 50 Swordsman and 30 Archers in this army" and as long as the leader is near a base that can produce these units, they'll be made and automatically added to it.
Also, unlike KOHAN that gets boring really fast because that's pretty much the only thing you did the whole game, I'd include some more interaction with abilities like this:
If you give a certain equipment to a unit, he may get a lesser power that he uses on his own in combat automatically.
If you include a special\support unit or equipment in your army that gives you a major power, it will be available for you to use. Selecting your army shows you how many "charges" that power has since it's based around how many units have it. Clicking that button and using that power will tell the closest valid unit to move in range and use that power so you don't actually have to select each individual unit or change.
This would mean you could easily make an army with default units, swap their equipment to give them special powers too and include support units that use their abilities on their own but also give you major powers to use tactically.
Bigger and better battles with 1/10 of the micro.