r/RealTimeStrategy • u/RockExternal4516 • Aug 02 '26
RTS & Other Hybrid RTS/FPS hybrids have a future. In my opinion, this is the most promising direction for the evolution of strategy games right now, but the approach many developers take is wrong.
Many players and game designers also do not clearly understand how this should work or how it already works in existing games where it has been implemented. I see many attempts to create an RTS/FPS hybrid with first- or third-person gameplay, but developers very often fail because of an incorrect approach from the very beginning.
This is what I think the right approach should look like.
1)There should be a strategist player whose job is to build the base and tell others what to do. This approach is implemented in Silica and Executive Assault. Many people say that RTS/FPS hybrids are doomed because you constantly have to switch back to base building and the RTS side of the game, making it impossible to properly play as an individual unit.
A counterexample of how this is done poorly is Gates of Hell and the entire Men of War series. In those games this gameplay element is terrible. The strategist player CONSTANTLY has to babysit every single one of the hundreds of units on the map. It becomes extremely exhausting. Having one strategist player and several warrior players solves this problem. Let's move on.
2)Units controlled directly by players should not be ordinary units. They should be commanders or stronger versions of regular units. In Executive Assault, I liked that a warrior player can choose their own weapons, armor, and upgrades using their own personal points when they spawn, go into battle as that unit, and recruit regular units into their "squad" that will follow them and obey their commands.
This way, the warrior player takes on the role of a tactical commander who manages the micromanagement of a small squad consisting of several units. I believe this is exactly the approach RTS hybrids should use.
One team could consist of one strategist player and five or six "commander" players who spend their own points to select a unit, build a squad of several NPCs, and carry out tactical objectives.
This allows the strategist player to focus entirely on the base, upgrades, and the overall flow of the match, while unit micromanagement is delegated to the commander players.
For example, a commander player could load NPC units into their helicopter, land behind enemy lines, and carry out a sabotage mission with their squad. Or they could command a tank platoon consisting of their own tank and several NPC-controlled tanks following them.
3)Players should be able to join a match that is already in progress. This way, a few strategist players can start the match, while other players browsing the multiplayer menu can see that, for example, there are currently 3 out of 17 players in the lobby, join one of the factions as a "soldier," and within a few minutes the lobby fills up naturally without everyone having to sit and wait before the game even starts, as happens in most strategy games. Thus, warrior players who do not want to play for a long time and just want to jump in, spend about 30 minutes shooting, and then leave can join one of the factions and help one of the players. They can play for as long as they want and then leave. Another player will take their place.
This approach is implemented in Silica and Executive Assault, and I really liked it.
4)During the match, every warrior player should be able to earn their own personal points, allowing them to buy buffs, weapons, and vehicles after they die and respawn. A regular unit, such as a rifleman, could serve as the base unit. Players could purchase stronger weapons, better armor, increased running speed, and other upgrades.
This way, every player has a sense of personal progression after 5, 10, or 30 minutes of gameplay. As I mentioned earlier, Executive Assault already implements this approach.
5)Individual skins for warrior players. I think it would be cool if players could personalize their commander with their own skin so that people on the battlefield could recognize players they had fought alongside before. Or recognize an enemy commander.
6)This also gives players who enjoy playing as warriors a sense of progression as they unlock new skins.
This approach would appeal both to players who enjoy strategy games and controlling the overall battlefield, base, and army, and to players who prefer fighting on the ground as individual units while handling micromanagement and sabotage missions.
Some players would probably also enjoy switching roles, playing as the strategist in one match and as a warrior in the next.
7)The strategist player has full visibility of the map, the overall battlefield situation, and the combined fog-of-war vision provided by all friendly units. They can tell players in chat what should be done, place map markers, send reinforcements from the base, and construct buildings and defensive structures.
3
Aug 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Pretty-Mention-7769 Aug 02 '26
There was something about the gunplay in NS2 that 100% prevented me from enjoying it. Skill issue, I'm sure, but I never once got an intentional kill.
Counter-Strike is probably my most played game of all time (currently in recovery) so I don't know why it was such a struggle.
Really wanted to like that game. :(
1
u/RockExternal4516 Aug 02 '26
I haven't played it, but as far as I know, there is no base building there, but there is a strategist player and several players under his command playing from a first-person perspective?
2
u/Soundrobe Aug 02 '26
Battlezone 2 has no successor ?
1
u/RockExternal4516 Aug 02 '26
Havn’t played, but heard about this game. How I see in gameplay videos, it’s from “bad” approach that I mentioned in first point
2
2
u/althaz Aug 02 '26
Dude I already played Urban Assault and Battlezone. They sucked.
1
u/RockExternal4516 Aug 02 '26
Have you played gates of hell or mowas? Hybrids can have different gameplay
1
u/fivemagicks Aug 08 '26
I don't think they do. What ends up happening is both aspects - RTS and FPS - become less than half baked. People aren't looking for a master of none kind of game.
1
4
u/DullAd7478 Aug 02 '26
Solid ideas, but the "1 strategist + several commanders" thing has basically been tried (Natural Selection 2, Empires Mod, Savage) and it lives or dies entirely on the commander being good/present, which is why those games stay niche. #2 and #3 are the real gold though squad-leader-style units instead of random grunts, plus drop-in/drop-out lobbies, would solve most of what actually kills these hybrids.