"Mobilization was to introduce a few new concepts to the genre. We wanted to simplify the actual game play while making the game mechanics more complex. That is, less clicking, more thinking. So the first thing we did was eliminate the entire unit creation mechanism. Really, how do you build people? I bet Napoleon would have loved to be able to conjure up 10,000 more soldiers after Waterloo if he just had enough wood and gold."

What do you think of Stardock's game they almost made with the TA engine?

Everyone knows that you cannot make a great game today without porn! This game had ZERO porn in it!

I think he just didn't mention the porn so that he could sell the game at Wall-Mart. Still, it sounded pretty good. If it could avoid the "AI bloodlusts all 15 ogres and sends them and that group of dragons and those sappers and those other ogres and those ships to attack me all at once while I'm still trying to bloodlust my ogres" problem (I don't think *any* RTS has ever really addressed this) then it would be great.

My god! Look at the size of the sentence!

I am actually a big fan of RTS games that don't focus on production speed. I think placement of your units, and use of strategy on the battle field should always come before a race to just produce quickly. Production should have it's focus, but I think in many games it becomes overdone.

I think Shogun: Total War is an excellent example of a great pairing of production and strategy. While some don't think it is a true RTS (The production is done in a campaign style turn-based, while combat is in real time), I personally find it an excellent mix of empire building and combat strategy.

Whoa... I'm off topic.

"I think Shogun: Total War is an excellent example of a great pairing of production and strategy. While some don't think it is a true RTS (The production is done in a campaign style turn-based, while combat is in real time), I personally find it an excellent mix of empire building and combat strategy."

Yeah, I liked it too. But Brad's really talking about multiplayer RTS games where production is a factor.

One of the things Blizzard told me when I was out there to see Warcraft 3 is that the best Starcraft players micromanaged production and used the mini-map to fight. They'd just send troops to fight via the mini-map and keep fiddling with their buildings and peons. This tended to give them an advantage over the people who micromanaged the battle.

I'm very glad to see these columns and threads about RTS innovation and what would make the ideal RTS game. Unfortunately, I'm getting very disturbed by what I can only describe as "de-innovation" in some of the new product I'm seeing.

Exhibit A: I've just received the gold master for Kingdom Under Fire, which I'll be reviewing for CGO/Computer Games. Now this master came with no docs whatsoever, so I don't want to prejudge it too much. But this much I do know just from reading the official web site FAQ and noodling around with a few missions:

1) No in-mission saves! Here we have not only a resource gathering and managing RTS game, with what appear to be some fairly lengthy missions with multiple goals, but one that also has a fair amount of RPG elements, but no in-mission saves. Why are we seeing so many new RTS games w/o an in-mission save capablity? I know Tom made some good points in his Computer Games article about the value of "dying" in games and iron-man mode, but, geez, he made a point that it should be an OPTION, not mandatory. God forbid my wife needs the PC for work in the middle of a mission...

2) Abysmal unit pathfinding. Units that are members of groups seem to get stuck all over the place. Why is this so hard to get right?

3) Missing "niceties" like units displaying the number of the CTRL-# group that they're assigned to. Espcially since this game limits the number of units you can drag-select ala StarCraft.

What galls me is that these are things that RTS games like Dark Reign, TA, and StarCraft that came out 3 or more years ago got right. You'd think developers would be paying attention.

OK, I feel better now. ;)

"1) No in-mission saves!"

Jason, I'm in the midst of writing up an early hours piece for our site of this game, and I'm dumbfounded by these ommissions also. I had to play a stupid fucking mission 3 times because of the lack of a save. The first time was because I didn't play the mission right, but it took me an hour to realize that. The second time I was an hour into it an foolishly let my hero die and lost the mission. It really aggravated me!

I'll tell you something else that's aggravating, but maybe you know the answer to it, Mark. I can't figure out how to pause the damned game. I don't just mean pause to give orders, I mean PAUSE, period!

Please tell me there's a way to do at least that, because, if there isn't, aggravation is hardly going be a strong enough word for this one.

No saves, no pause, bad pathfinding, UI problems -- and this is the gold master!? Not an early beta?

Damn. Scratch another game that sounded really interesting in the previews. I sure hope 2001 will get better than this. :-(

"Scratch another game that sounded really interesting in the previews. I sure hope 2001 will get better than this. :-( "

It really is a lackluster title from the brief time I've messed with it. The basic RTS gameplay is sound, but it plays like something from 3 years ago. Like Jason said, it's ignored many of the improvements we've come to expect in RTS games.

The Diablo-esque levels were probably a big mistake. The one I played was tearfully boring, and there's no telling how much dev time they spent on this aspect of the game.

Oh, and Jason, I don't know how to pause it. Good luck trying to finish this baby. Heh. Tell Bauman you expect hazard pay for writing this one.

Well, I did finally figure out how to pause it. It pauses if you call up the option menu. So even if we have to play it in iron-man mode, we at least don't have to endure iron-bladder and iron-sphincter mode. And I guess we're OK if the dog barfs on the carpet or the pizza guy rings the door bell.

Other than that, Mark is absolutely right. The Diablo-style levels are a big snooze. (And the boss at the end of the first level looked a guy in a bird costume.) It's kind of a shame. I go into any review wanting to like the game, but I have to admit to a little more bias toward this one because Phantagram is a Korean outfit and we adopted our kids from Korea. So I thought, "Hey, great, let's see what they can do!"

Unfortunately, the whole thing gives you the feeling that Phantagram is a group of really big Blizzard fans who thought it would be cool to see what would happen if you tried combining WarCraft 2 with Diablo. (Hey, wasn't that Blizzard's original concept for WarCraft 3?) The thing is neither the WarCraft nor the Diablo part of the game is very good. And the whole sure isn't any greater than the sum of the parts.

"Unfortunately, the whole thing gives you the feeling that Phantagram is a group of really big Blizzard fans who thought it would be cool to see what would happen if you tried combining WarCraft 2 with Diablo. (Hey, wasn't that Blizzard's original concept for WarCraft 3?) The thing is neither the WarCraft nor the Diablo part of the game is very good. And the whole sure isn't any greater than the sum of the parts."

My thoughts exactly. I was looking forward to this game, too, so if I had any bias, it was in wanting to like it. I like fantasy RTS games.

The lack of a save feature is really puzzling. I know the Koreans are hardcore gamers, but I still don't see how they could justify not allowing in-mission saves.

The official web site FAQ says there are no in-mission saves because every unit in the RTS game accumulates experience points and that makes it too complex to immplement.

The problem with that explanation is that there's no way to tell which units have experience, there's no little veteran badge on them or anything, and, at least from what I've seen so far, resources in the game are so plentiful that it's easy to build huge numbers of units, so experience doesn't really matter anyway.

Besides, this explanation would only apply to the RTS part of the game. It doesn't explain the lack of a save in the RPG levels. And there's nothing more annoying than getting your character killed near the end of a level and having to play the whole damned thing through again.

"The official web site FAQ says there are no in-mission saves because every unit in the RTS game accumulates experience points and that makes it too complex to immplement."

Ha! I remember the guys at Activision telling me there would be no variably speed in Star Trek Armada because it wouldn't work with the physics for how the 3D models of the ships moved. This was "developer lingo" for "we didn't want to implement this feature, so we made up a reason why it won't work". Phantagram's excuse for no ingame saves sounds like the same thing!

(BTW, Armada ended up having variable speeds when it came out.)

-Tom

A stragety game that involves stragety and
tactics- hmmm novel concept. WHere do I sign up?
Tank rushes are a bore, and I adore shogun. It's
production is a bit tedious and old fashion, but
mobilizations concept sounds good. Please proceed.

Yeah, I'd like to see Mobilization too. Since Cavedog collapsed, though, I don't think it's going to happen.