What IS Warzone?

[Corporal Punishment]

I originally wanted to post this in Per's 'What defines Warzone' thread, but it does not really fit in there. Neither is it a short list, nor has it anything to do with his intention. I will present here some general thoughts on WZ's most outstanding game mechanics and finally put this in a historical scope to examine what WZ is and whether or not it is original.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A most notable difference between WZ and other RTS products of the "SC/C&C type", if you let me call it that, is it's economy model. Instead of harvesting finite resources from fields, oil is extracted from infinite wells. There are no harvesters moving across the map that require protection. Instead, we have static locations as the basis for our economy which we need to defend. A major imperative is thus to claim those resources then we can hold while simultaneously denying the opponent to utilize those resources we can not currently hold ourself.
Whether or not it is possible to claim and hold a resource depends on the current strength of our own forces: Either we need enough field units to maintain a front line in adequate distance from resources or we need enough time, energy and building units to set up sufficient defenses at those resources to repulse enemy attack. Hence, the number of resources we can conquer depends on the number of resources we already possess.

WZ offers a unrivaled scope of defensive structures. The point of having these obviously is to ensure the security of static locations, like resources or production facilities, independent from field units. Since structures have their own line of body upgrades, the player is once again forced to choose: For strong defense, neglecting field units upgrades, or for strong field units, neglecting defense upgrades or for a trade-off between these extremes. All three concepts allow to win the game in the context of an adequate strategy which, in this case, consist of balancing unit manufacture and defense construction.
Nonetheless, like with the economy model we once again find WZ is built around the concept that static locations and control thereof is as important as to deny the opponent this control.

Also not implemented in many RTS games to the same degree are building upgrades. SC has a limited module functionality to unlock certain units, but nothing compared to the modules and upgrades WZ offers. Any player will agree building research, factory and power modules is a must-have to stay competitive. And one must never underestimate the impact of research speed updates, production speed updates and let's not forget improvement of base structure materials to withstand air-strike or artillery bombardment.

Something not found in other RTS products is the commander. The special function of this unit is to grant bonuses to units in it's group. These bonuses depend on the rank of the commander what means they ultimately depend on how long the commander survives. A novice commander set to 'Do-or-die!' leading few units is exactly what people around the community keep calling it: Useless. It gives no to negligible bonuses if used for a 'fire-and-forget' swarm unit.
But once it levels to Professional or higher, the bonuses become substantial. Still, this it can only do if pulled back from the front and repaired regularly. Needless to say it will drag it's group with it so we need a replacement group handy and must watch out for our commanders and what they are doing. In other words: Micromanage them.

Then there is research. To unlock advanced unit types and upgrade existing units by investing a part of your income into research instead of unit manufacture is common in the RTS genre, admittedly. But unlike other games, WZ lets us design our own unit types.
This means research requires to actually make a choice for a certain item and against another while many other products reduce it to a linear path where the only choice the player actually can make is at which point in time to research the next item.

At last, there is the making and breaking of alliances. Side with a neighbor to overcome a powerful adversary or gain safety on your flank, but don't miss the right moment to attack your ally. Likewise, don't trust him too much and be wary, as there can only be one winner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this combination we do not find the above explained mechanics in any other RTS product. But does this make WZ original? I hold the answer to this question to be no. This is for a very simple reason: It has been done before. Few people in the community will have any idea where and when because most are too young to remember.
I'm of course referring not to a RTS game, not even to computer software. A exact role-model for WZ is to be found in strategy wargames popular in the 1970's. Nearly forgotten by today, these were the primeval soup from which spawned tabletops like 40k, role playing games like D&D and TBS computer games such as Battle Isle. From the latter developed the RTS genre.

Instead of oil wells, the foundation of economies in those games were cities, which also served as unit production points. Cities were either neutral or owned by one of the sides in the game. They could be conquered or, given a side did not have the resources to defend them once conquered, be razed. But they could not be founded by a side. So the only way to replace a razed city was to conquer the ruins and rebuild. Sounds familiar, huh?

The equivalent of defenses and building upgrades were city enhancements: Instead of creating new units, players could invest in upgrading city walls for better strength and stronger defense fire. Hard points, anybody?

Players could also enlarge their cities for money so they would generate more income and could produce more advanced units. Very much like adding modules to a power generator, research center or factory, is it not?

With the commander it is blatantly obvious it is exactly hat was called a warlord in strategy wargames. Having a high-level warlord to lead your stacks was imperative to win back then and players would go to any means necessary to protect their warlords, even sacrificing a complete army to allow him to escape a dangerous situation and stack with a new army. This was because units were much weaker then WZ units and warlords had much higher bonuses then commanders.

Finally: Research. Some strategy wargames had it, some did not. Those with research concepts featured tech trees much like WZ, if less comprehensive. Still, players had to choose what research to conduct and what to abandon, resulting in unlocking certain unit types and ruling out others.

About alliances, I do not have to say much. The same principles apply to WZ as to Chainmail or Risk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does all this sum up to? In short, I come to the conclusion that WZ is, from it's core mechanics, neither 'a fast-pace action game' [sic!] nor original. It is a strategy wargame enhanced from turn-based to real-time through the possibilities of the computer. To unlock the full potential of units, a certain amount of micromanagement, especially of the commanders, is inevitable. It also requires more tactical thinking then "Good evening, infidel! SILENCE!! I KILL YOU!!!"
Unfortunately, the majority of contemporary audience, having grown up with the typical gameplay of RTS adhering to the SC/C&C type, instinctively play the game as if there was a timer running in the shape of finite resources. This leads to rushing large masses of primitive units in do-or-die attacks being a most accepted strategy while building good defense is looked down upon as turteling. A game is over in 20 to 40 minutes and many technologies are obsolete. Just for the record: A strategy wargame in the 70's could run for weeks!

[lav_coyote25]

What does all this sum up to? In short, I come to the conclusion that WZ is, from it's core mechanics, neither 'a fast-pace action game' [sic!] nor original. It is a strategy wargame enhanced from turn-based to real-time through the possibilities of the computer. To unlock the full potential of units, a certain amount of micromanagement, especially of the commanders, is inevitable. It also requires more tactical thinking then "Good evening, infidel! SILENCE!! I KILL YOU!!!"
Unfortunately, the majority of contemporary audience, having grown up with the typical gameplay of RTS adhering to the SC/C&C type, instinctively play the game as if there was a timer running in the shape of finite resources. This leads to rushing large masses of primitive units in do-or-die attacks being a most accepted strategy while building good defense is looked down upon as turteling. A game is over in 20 to 40 minutes and many technologies are obsolete. Just for the record: A strategy wargame in the 70's could run for weeks!

finally some one that understands that game play can go longer than 20 to 40 minutes... weeks is a bit much, at todays map sizes and short attention spans. rush to win - i wonder if that is how they treat their significant other, leaving them , shall we say, wanting and jaded. a great game should last over an hour, an awesome game over 5 hours. just my opinion.

[effigy]

I've been thinking about this post for awhile. I think the first part would have made a great post in Per's thread, and that the second part was a great analogy. The third part is nice in that it ties the two together, but I have a hard time swallowing the bit about game length and rush tactics. I'm not sensing anything tangible that justifies that (and this isn't the first comment I've seen around here like it).

For me, and I'm sure others, it's not about a short attention span. It's about efficiency. If you can secure a win with a mg tower rush, or a mg viper wheel "rush" against your opponent... why shouldn't you? I've played many games starting at T1 with engagements as early as 5 minutes into the match that lasted into T3 (30-45 minutes of play). The tech tree moves fast enough it's silly to not strike as soon as you have any sort of advantage. However, it moves slow enough that you shouldn't start a T1 game and expect to sit in your base waiting for Archangles and Dragon bodies. The smaller the map your playing on, the more apparent this becomes.

So called "turtler's" get looked down on because stereotypically they are the sort to whine and rage quit at the first sign of rush-tactics vs. dealing with the threat before fortifying their base. Rage quitting is not an acceptable strategy, in my book. "Turtling" also tends to favor game-play on high oil maps where all the oil you need to play are located in your base. Competitive games tend to happen on maps that require defending/stealing/capturing oil resources.

Note: I don't think the issue with commanders in MP currently is their lack of rank out-of-the-box. It's there HP, and [last I knew] bugs such as units becoming unassigned, and failing to return from repair. I've no idea if those have been fixed, however.

Also, it would have been nice to have mentioned "No Allainces" and "Fixed Teams" mode in addition to"Allainces."

[Corporal Punishment]

I do not, by all means, oppose to secure a win as fast as possible. Neither do I oppose attacking with viper-wheels-mg right away. This configuration exists for a reason. All I'm saying is WZ is not about rushing units in do-or-die mode as a sort of fire-and-forget weapons. It's all about balance between offense and defense.
The most annoying glitches with commanders, notably those you mentioned, have been fixed in newer versions of the game. Units no longer get unassigned, the repair-at-damage setting is robust and units reliably return to their commander. Also, the commander is set to stay behind it's group in the most recent builds to capitalize on it's high range for protection from enemy fire.

[Iluvalar]

Just for the record: A strategy wargame in the 70's could run for weeks!

I have an "RPG" mod around for NRS+ (yeah a mod over a mod). It's very close to be playable, i just need to make my scripts work again, i'll make a "RPG" pack for you then if you want. How much long you want your game to be ?

[Corporal Punishment]

Don't get all riled up just for me! I'm absolutely fine with a one to three hour game. Those incidents of strategy wargames running for weeks were mentioned just for the record without anything intended.
I am fully aware that those were extreme cases. These games would permanently be set up on 4 by 8 meter tables, or even larger, in the basement and used heavily modified rules of commercial products that were supposed to be played on a one by one meter map over one to two hours. All in all a single turn, because of several hundred units per side, would take all night to resolve. This is nothing I wish to recreate, at least not in a real-time environment. Maybe I'll host an old-school tabletop of those dimensions one day, given I find someone to play with.

[aubergine]

One thing that was completely overlooked in the opening post was the role that sensors play in WZ. I've not seen any other games that have sensors, yet alone such a wide variety of them.

[Corporal Punishment]

Starcraft has certain unit and structure types that act as sensors, but their primary purpose is to detect cloaked units. Something similar to WZ sensors are watchtowers in Warcraft 3. I'm not sure but Battle Isle may have had sensors too and I am rather convinced the exist in at least some C&C games.
But of course in all those cases sensors are confined to the role of revealing map and enemy movement since no artillery linking is implemented in either one. So I must to acknowledge you have a point there.