I wanted to start up a thread to gather ideas on how to address the problem of power in WZ. I have some ideas of my own that I'm going to implement in my own little section of the world but I thought I'd get some input from others.
Problem: The power system doesn't really allow the player to pursue research, build defenses, and construct an army at the same time.
Problem: High (and extremely high) oil maps are a symptom of the problem.
Problem: Power problems help facilitate turtling since it's easier to hole up and research/defend than create an army
Problem: Power problems facilitate very long game times
Problem: Do players really have any incentive to use low/normal power settings in the multiplayer/skirmish game menus? I mean, what's the point? To have a really, really long/really long game (respectively)?
So, for starters, lets throw out the entire power system as presently constituted and go back to some basics.
Let's start with a simple discussion of the implications of Warzone's resource gathering system from the standpoint of the RTS genre in general. I'll compare it with Starcraft, which is pretty run-of-the-mill and typical for RTS games:
* In SC, the player typically starts with a base that is located in the heart of a mineral field. The mineral field is exhaustable and represents the base's primary economy.
* The rate at which resources are gathered determines the rate at which the player builds his army and upgrades it - Players can invest some of the resources on gathering units that can increase the rate at which resources are mined (to a certain point)
* During the course of the game, it becomes strategically important to expand to a secondary resource location to 1) increase resource input and then 2) to hedge against the exhaustion of resources from the primary location.
* Players that do not expand soon enough (or at all) often lose the game (guaranteed loss, eventually)
* The economy of the game becomes therefore the primary tactical strategy - he who controls and manages his own resources most effectively, wins
* Typically the strategic importance of one resource location is high.
* Players typically start the game with minimal resources in reserve - mandating a resource-centric strategy for the first minutes of the game
* A player must have all resources required for a unit/building/upgrade before progress on it can begin.
In Warzone, this dynamic changed greatly:
* Resources are inexhaustable and are often spread throughout the entire map. Typically they are not co-located and are often in indefensible areas.
* Resources come in at a steady rate and the player cannot invest more to increase the output of a single resource.
* The strategic importance of one resource location (typically one oil well) is low.
* Resources directly determine the overall rate at which a player can expand his army and upgrade it.
* The resources located at the player's primary base are often adequate to maintain a small but technologically competitive army and upgrade it.
* Denying a player from an expansion resource does not doom the player to defeat - ergo resources have secondary importance
* Players start the game with adequate-to-abundant resources in reserve - enough to initially pursue a non-resource-centric strategy
* A player does not need to have enough resources to complete a unit/building/upgrade, as these will progress as resources come in.
So - given the problems and implications/comparisons with the traditional RTS - how do we change the power system to facilitate the spirit of Warzone - Strategy by Design?
In the source I am playing with, destroying a generator causes the player to lose all the power it holds. The generator in this case becomes a bit more strategically important, but I still think that this falls short, because now the generator becomes a bit more of a liability for the player instead of merely a neccessity.
(see above).
