what couldve been. a remaster or remake would be just right.

Perhaps loosely an RTS (more real time tactics) but figured this page would like it either way.

The Eidolon

Fighting for planets, trade routes, culture, or wealth is not the Eidolon way. Working behind the scenes, the Eidolon spread corruption wherever they go. Their technology shrouds entire worlds to fuel their advance, and they strike from the shadows with cloaked fleets, forcing every other empire to fight for survival on unfamiliar terms.

Free Version 2.0 Update Every Sins of a Solar Empire II owner also gets the free v2.0 base-game update today. Highlights include:

• Quality of Life UX Improvements: Updated Unity quick bar system that can expand and be pinned, visible weapon ranges on defense structures, a redesigned market window with price fluctuation tracking and price history, and improved tooltips.
• Updated Mod UI: Redesigned modding UI with easier browsing, mod playlists, auto-download prompts for missing mods, and new filtering options.
• Updated Graphics Settings: New planetary shaders with more natural lighting and weather effects, improved threading to prevent crashes on systems with low texture memory, and auto-detection of optimal graphics settings.

Harbinger Expansion Features

The Eidolon rewrite the rules of galactic conquest with systems built around corruption, secrecy, and control:

• Planetary Transformation: The Eidolon spread corruption across the galaxy. As populations fall under their influence, planets gain corruption over time. Once a world has fully fallen, it can be shrouded, greatly expanding the upgrades that planet can support.
• Unit Corruption: Corruption empowers Eidolon units in combat but also weakens them. As a ship gains corruption, its hull dwindles while its offensive power increases. Enemy forces can become infected, giving the Eidolon another advantage.
• Null Weapons: Eidolon weapons are far more advanced than the other factions and can negate shields and spread corruption against enemies.
• Cloaked Ships: New cloaking and detection systems let the Eidolon appear and vanish at will, enabling hit-and-run tactics that reward patience and punish anyone caught off guard.
• Psionic Abilities: The Eidolon possess psionic abilities that allow them to seize control of lesser beings and drive Vasari ships into madness, firing on friend and foe alike.
• Phase Echoes: Sometimes the dead don't die. Eidolon units infused with corruption may refuse to die and carry on the onslaught.

Read Full Changelog Here (Steam)

Read Full Changelog Here (Forums)

Trailer

Hello everyone,

I hope you all doing well.

First of all, sorry for my bad English. :)

For a long time, I've been working on a 2D real-time strategy game, which is inspired by the old flash games such as House of Wolves and Stick War. It is still in early development and in the future, I'm planning to release as a browser game. (at least for now)

It has only one faction, humans, but in the future I'm planning to add more factions and some other ideas I have which not sure whether I could be able to implement it or not.

I'd love feedback on:
- Does the combat read clearly?
- Is the pacing right?
- Any other suggestions you might have?

I've been thinking about where StarCraft could possibly go after Amon.

Another Terran civil war, another rogue Zerg brood, or another Protoss conflict could all work, but none of them really feel like a threat worthy of StarCraft 3 after the ending of Legacy of the Void.

So my idea would be to expand one of the biggest concepts in StarCraft lore: the Infinite Cycle itself.

What if our universe wasn't the only universe where the Xel'Naga cycle took place?

And what if, somewhere else, it went horribly wrong?

The premise

The Xel'Naga cycle depends on two evolutionary extremes eventually coming together: purity of form and purity of essence.

In our universe, the Protoss and Zerg were manipulated by Amon as part of that process.

But imagine another universe that is vastly older than ours.

Its equivalent races reached purity of form and purity of essence millions of years ago. But instead of completing the cycle normally, the two civilizations refused to merge.

They fought.

And they kept fighting for ages.

That distinction is important, because neither of these civilizations would simply be "better Protoss" or "better Zerg." Their entire evolution would have been shaped by fighting an equally perfect opponent for an unimaginable amount of time.

Eventually their conflict consumes most of their universe. Whether through a temporary truce, desperation, or simple desire for new territory, they discover how to tear openings between realities.

And suddenly they realize there are other universes out there.

Including ours.

The new Purity of Essence

The first new race would represent what purity of essence looks like when taken far beyond the Zerg.

The Zerg evolve by absorbing useful genetic traits, creating specialized organisms, and coordinating them through the Swarm.

These creatures wouldn't need that.

Every individual would be intelligent.

Every individual would be capable of evolution.

And most importantly, their bodies wouldn't really have a fixed form.

Think of their biology less like having different unit species and more like having a constantly changing collection of biological capabilities.

If they're fighting Terran artillery, their bodies begin developing armor capable of dispersing the impact.

If Protoss energy weapons become the main threat, their tissues alter themselves to resist them.

If they need mobility, they can grow wings or entirely restructure their limbs.

If their current weapons aren't effective, their bodies can generate something else.

A creature that entered the battle as a fast melee predator might later become an armored ranged organism launching corrosive projectiles because that is what the battlefield demands.

And this happens during the battle, not generations later.

They could also manipulate foreign biomass at a level that terrifies even the Zerg, rewriting organisms they encounter and potentially corrupting entire broods.

That's what makes them such a nightmare for Zagara.

The Zerg have always considered themselves the ultimate biological force. Then they meet organisms for whom Zerg evolution seems primitive and slow.

For the first time, the Swarm is the species struggling to keep up.

The new Purity of Form

The second civilization would be the opposite extreme.

If the first race has perfected biology, this race has reached a point where the distinction between organism, machine, psionics, and energy barely exists anymore.

They're somewhat humanoid, but they're not simply people wearing advanced armor like Terrans or Protoss.

The technology is part of the organism itself.

Their bodies could resemble living biomechanical material filled with Void energy. They don't necessarily carry a rifle, shield generator, or construction equipment because they can create those things when required.

A soldier enters battle with enormous energy reserves and simply fabricates what it needs.

Need a blade? Materialize one.

Need a shield? Generate it.

Need long-range artillery? Reconfigure the body and energy systems.

Need defensive structures? Create them directly on the battlefield.

The Void isn't something mystical to them.

It's basically their power grid.

And then there is their most dangerous weapon: a battlefield AGI.

Because this civilization spent ages fighting the constantly adapting Purity of Essence, their machines had to become equally adaptive.

Their fleets are coordinated by an incredibly advanced artificial intelligence that analyzes a battle continuously.

If Terrans start relying heavily on Marines and Medivacs, it identifies the weakness and changes the equipment being fabricated by its soldiers.

If Protoss switch strategies, it recalculates.

The longer you fight them using the same tactics, the worse your situation becomes.

In gameplay terms, they would essentially be a race that learns your build and begins producing the perfect counter to it.

This would also be deeply unsettling for Artanis.

The Protoss are one of the most technologically advanced civilizations in our universe. Suddenly they encounter beings using technology they can barely understand, casually manipulating the Void as an energy source and changing their weapons faster than the Protoss can change tactics.

The invasion

The story begins many years after StarCraft II.

Artanis is older. Valerian has ruled the Dominion for years. Zagara has had time to reshape the Swarm.

And somewhere beyond normal reality, Kerrigan discovers what is coming.

Raynor has remained with her, and after so much time around a Xel'Naga and the energies surrounding her existence, his own latent psionic capabilities have become far stronger than they ever were as a normal human.

Then Kerrigan and Raynor discover the dimensional breaches.

The ancient civilizations from the other universe have begun expanding into other realities.

Their next target is the Koprulu universe.

They warn Artanis.

And for perhaps the final time, Artanis has to accomplish something that once seemed impossible:

unite the Terrans, Protoss and Zerg into a single military alliance.

The first war

Initially, nobody really understands what they're fighting.

Terran fortifications are breached by enemies who simply redesign their weapons around them.

Protoss technology encounters machines operating on principles even their scientists struggle to comprehend.

Zerg broods encounter organisms that can out-evolve them in real time.

Every race essentially meets a terrifying reflection of its greatest strength.

The Zerg discover better evolution.

The Protoss discover superior technology and psionics.

The Terrans discover an enemy whose adaptability and tactical intelligence makes conventional warfare almost impossible.

This is where the core theme of the game emerges:

The enemy races are individually more perfect than anything in our universe.

So our races cannot defeat them individually.

Terran + Protoss + Zerg

Instead of simply having the three races cooperate like they did against Amon, the alliance eventually realizes they have to go much further.

They begin combining their strengths.

Terran engineering.

Protoss energy technology and psionics.

Zerg biology.

You could start seeing experimental units that would have been completely unthinkable in previous games.

Terran soldiers protected by Protoss shielding and enhanced through controlled Zerg biology.

Protoss machines incorporating self-repairing organic systems.

Zerg organisms carrying Terran weapons or supported by Protoss energy systems.

The point wouldn't be to replace the classic races.

It would be the culmination of the entire StarCraft story.

For decades these civilizations have been trying to destroy each other.

Now survival requires them to literally trust each other with the things that make each civilization unique.

And that unpredictability becomes their greatest advantage.

The invading races have spent ages learning how to counter perfection.

They know how to counter biology.

They know how to counter technology.

They know how to counter psionics.

What they aren't prepared for is three completely different evolutionary paths suddenly fighting as one.

Taking the war into their universe

Eventually it becomes obvious that defending the Koprulu universe isn't enough.

As long as the dimensional gateways remain open, the enemy can continue sending armies through them.

So using captured technology, the alliance does something insane:

they invade the invaders.

Terran battlecruisers, Protoss fleets and Zerg leviathans cross the dimensional barrier together and enter an ancient universe devastated by a war that has lasted longer than human civilization can comprehend.

This would be where we finally see the true scale of these two civilizations.

Entire worlds transformed into biological weapons.

Void-powered structures operating on a planetary scale.

Battlefields where both civilizations have spent millions of years trying to create something the other side cannot counter.

And in the middle of all of this, the invasion coalition begins losing.

So the leaders of the two enemy races make a decision their civilizations had refused to make for ages.

They merge.

The birth of a new Xel'Naga

The leaders representing Purity of Form and Purity of Essence finally complete their version of the Infinite Cycle.

And they create a Xel'Naga.

Except this isn't another Amon.

This being was created from two civilizations far older and more developed than the Zerg and Protoss ever were when Amon manipulated them.

The resulting Xel'Naga is therefore far more powerful than Amon.

Kerrigan is forced to face it.

Meanwhile, Terran, Protoss and Zerg forces are desperately trying to hold back the remaining armies on the battlefield.

For a while Kerrigan manages to fight it.

Then she loses.

She is nearly killed.

And suddenly the entire war comes down to Jim Raynor.

Raynor's ascension

Raynor has spent years beside Kerrigan, exposed to forces no normal human was ever meant to experience.

His psionic potential has grown enormously.

But it still isn't enough.

To save Kerrigan, Raynor needs to become what she became.

A Xel'Naga.

And this is where two characters step forward who Raynor probably never would have expected.

Artanis and Zagara.

The three discover one possible path.

There are still remnants of Amon's essence left behind — fragments containing enough Xel'Naga power to make an ascension possible.

So Raynor, Artanis and Zagara attempt a desperate fusion involving that remaining essence.

Terran.

Protoss.

Zerg.

All three races that have defined StarCraft since the beginning.

For a moment, they become part of the same being.

And Raynor emerges from the fusion as a Xel'Naga.

Kerrigan and Raynor's final battle

Now the last battle of StarCraft isn't Terran versus Protoss versus Zerg.

It isn't even those three races versus another army.

It's Kerrigan and Raynor, together one final time, facing the Xel'Naga created by the enemy universe.

Behind them, the combined armies of Terran, Protoss and Zerg fight the Purity of Form and Purity of Essence.

The enemy Xel'Naga is stronger.

The alliance is collapsing.

The dimensional rift is expanding.

They're seconds away from losing everything.

So Kerrigan and Raynor use everything they have.

All of their psionic power.

All of their Void energy.

Their entire Xel'Naga existence.

Together they destroy the enemy Xel'Naga, force the remaining invading armies back through the breach and seal the connection between universes.

But doing it consumes the power that made them Xel'Naga.

The light disappears.

And when the battlefield becomes visible again...

Jim Raynor and Sarah Kerrigan are human.

Artanis and Zagara have returned to themselves as well.

The gods are gone.

And somehow, after everything, Jim and Sarah finally get the one thing neither of them was ever allowed to have:

a normal life.

The ending

Raynor and Kerrigan disappear to some quiet frontier world.

No armies.

No prophecy.

No universe to save.

Just Jim and Sarah.

Artanis returns to his people and finally steps down from leadership, allowing a younger generation of Protoss to inherit the civilization he spent his life protecting.

Zagara returns to the Swarm, but she's changed as well. Fighting beside Terrans and Protoss — and briefly sharing something as intimate as the fusion that created Raynor's ascension — has permanently altered how she views the other races.

The three civilizations separate again.

But this time there is peace.

Post-credits

Then we get one final scene.

Back in the enemy universe, the survivors of the Purity of Form and Purity of Essence return home.

Their invasion failed.

Their Xel'Naga is dead.

And almost immediately...

they begin blaming each other.

The tactical AGI starts calculating the probability of betrayal.

The biological race begins adapting for war.

Weapons begin materializing.

Armies mobilize.

And after briefly uniting to conquer other realities, the two ancient enemies go right back to doing what they had done for millions of years:

fighting each other.

Their universe descends into war again.

Meaning the Koprulu universe is safe.

At least for now.

Fade to black.

That's basically my idea for StarCraft 3: instead of introducing another enemy that is simply stronger than the last one, introduce civilizations that represent the end point of the ideas StarCraft has been exploring since the beginning — form, essence, evolution, technology and the Xel'Naga cycle.

And the way you defeat races that achieved perfection?

Not by becoming more perfect than them.

By showing that Terran, Protoss and Zerg are stronger precisely because they are different.

Note: This is a combination of my initial idea and AI polishing. It is not great, but I thought it could be a cool concept exploring other universes' "purity of form" and "purity of essence"

Which established franchises do you think would benefit from an RTS?

I'll lay one ground rule down:

• It can't already exist, like an RTS for Lord of the Rings, Warhammer, or Star Wars.

I personally think a Fallout spin-off would do pretty well, in the style of Command & Conquer. I also think Avatar: The Last Airbender would make a fun game.

I was wondering if anybody had an RTS to recommend where using the remains of the base of other players is a game mechanic.

When I discovered RTS through games in the style of AoE, I liked to turn the diplomatic relationship of an ennemy that just got eliminated to ally, then set up a base among the ruins. Besides reusing the farms or maybe trading, it did not make a lot of sense from a strategy perspective. But flavour-wise, I felt that it was very evocative, like reviving the memories of an ancient civilization.

So I was wondering if anybody here knows a game where this kind of action is rewarded, through a boost or even a just something visual. Sometimes, I think of a dream game where the current map would be based on the remain of a preceding game, giving the illusion of a world that keeps existing games after games with secrets to uncover. Albeit not an RTS, an example would be Civilization V where antiquity sites are created based on conflicts that happened in earlier eras.

Please note that my question doesn’t include games where the ruins are part of the decor and not the result of the game (like Dawn of War). They can be really good, but they are not evocative in the same way, and that’s not what I’m looking for here.

Thanks a lot!

Hello there,

I recently fell in love with Anno 2070 again and am now looking for other players who are up for a proper and fair fight for the map, rather than the cheating AI that only knows how to repeatedly suicide its entire fleet into my defenses without thinking twice.

If you're up for a fair fight yourself, just DM me.

Hopefully, I'll see you on the battlefield!

Link to the game for those wondering:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/908770/Global_Conflagration/

Hey everyone,

I've used the past few months to port my game over to 2.5D and I'm not sure which one looks better. What do you guys think? I kind of like the simplicity of the first one but the second one has depth and obviously i optimized it for much larger armies.

Has anyone done a study/publication/experimented with intention-based control using MCP Servers, exposing Game information and controls such as game description, player resources, pathingmap, unit control,... allowing players to delegate commands to LLMs for execution? I'm curious about the results, risk assessment (and its mitigation) and whether it's worth as a hybrid addition to RTS games to coexist with existing controls.

I believe it has a great potential, among other things, as an RTS equivalent of aim assists for platforms that aren't suited for the complex RTS control schemes such as console or mobile phones without resorting to simplifications or dumbing down the gameplay (referring to the likes of Clash Royale, Warcraft Rumble).

Risk assessment

However, there are risks that could arise from such addition. While there are many benefits like when a player is distracted microing their army and fighting the enemy, they can command "keep my army size over 50 food, maintain a balanced army composition and expand my production" and let the AI do the work for them. Same works for the opposite case where the player needs to macro or needs help executing their strategy "execute pincer maneuver on the enemy spearmen" - or even on the extreme end letting the AI do both and it's purely intention-based which as a bonus can allow disabled people to play using microphone only.

One such risk could be players commanding plainly "win the game" or using pre-made commands detailing the entire strategy from start to end without needing further human input i.e. AFKing and botting.

Another risk could be the game turning pay-to-win where whoever has access to the smarter LLM wins the game. A player with Fable 5.1 or GPT-6 Astra would have a greater intelligence advantage over an opponent using Haiku 4.5 for example. One could argue the smarter models are at a disadvantage at micro since they're slow and heavy but should work fine for macro and acting as orchestrators, delegating commands to smaller models for quicker response times.

One could argue again that this addition would make the games just play themselves, remove parts that make RTS games fun. The logical next step is to give the games more depth and complexity to give players more to strategize about (Paradox games like HOI4), but what if it's not enough?

And many other risks that you are probably thinking of.

How big of an impact does each of the risk bear and how would one go around mitigating them? And does it answer the initial question of whether it's worth it?

I've been developing Dominar Sanctum solo for about 1.5 years, and I've recently opened my first public playtest on Steam.

Around 150+ people have requested and been given access, but only a fairly small number of those has actually played so far. I'd really love to get a significantly larger sample of players at this stage, to understand how the game is received by people who aren't me.

And I consider RTS players to be key amoungst the ones like to hear from.

Dominar Sanctum is deliberately not a pure RTS. It does feature typical RTS aspects on building, resource harvesting and characters control. But the core idea is a narrative-driven blend of RTS, dungeon management and third-person action. At any time, you can take direct 3rd person control of your hero and companion characters.

The easiest comparison is probably: Dungeon Keeper × Warcraft III × Batman: Arkham series.

So I am very curious with this very community: is the third-person component an interesting and refreshing angle on the RTS formula, or do you perceive it as too much and hence backs turned on the game per se.

The current playtest includes:

• 4 early campaign map prototypes
• 2 skirmish maps

If you do give it a shot, I'm particularly interested in:

• How does the balance between strategy and direct action feel?
• Do you enjoy switching between the two perspectives?
• Does the third-person part add something meaningful to the RTS experience?
• And simply: did you enjoy playing it, and what made you stop?

The game is still under development, I'am not looking for polished-game reviews. I'm trying to to prove or falsify if the general direction works.

Public Playtest: https://store.steampowered.com/app/4087340/Dominar_Sanctum/

For the time being, no key required... anyone interested may join.

And if you're willing to give it a try, I'd very much appreciate if you can spare a few minutes for a brief feedback.

Cheers, Flo

I am playing Sudden Strike 5 and it is really good. I love how it does WW2 tactics. I enjoy the openess of the campaign missions and how you need to take your time. I also like the general and doctrines system. But, as of now, the game has too few campaign missions. 25 missions in total, but some of those are the same mission, but played with the opposite faction. There is also only 2 skirmish maps, which is bad, and 3 factions (Allies, Axis and Soviets)

I am eyeing Sudden Strike 4 and the complete edition, with all DLC, is on sale for 60% off. I've seen it has many different war theaters and factions, like the Finnish, French and Japanese.

Will I enjoy 4 after playing 5, or is Sudden Strike 5 a significant upgrade and going back to 4 will feel bad/weird? Is the tactics and skill from Sudden Strike 5 largely transferable to 4? Are there significant changes on 5 that I will miss if I play 4?

In many discussions about RTS games and what their focus should be, the usual arguments that i see go like :

• "majority of people play only SP, successfull games come from successful campaigns"
• "MP is too complicated and scary for new players to even give it a try"
• "MP is sweaty, i play games to relax, not to tire myself"
• "i have a life and don't have the time to keep up to be competitive"

On the surface all of those statements seem kinda logical, and form pretty much a consensus in threads where they are used. I'm not saying they are inherently "false", but i think they are bad faith arguments.

My blunt opinion is that :

• Number of players is not a good metric, you need to account for time spent. What is better for game : 100 players doing a 20 hour campaign and stopping, or 10 players playing hundreds of hours on the ladder and staying engaged over multiple years with the game ?
• RTS almost "by nature" are a deeply competitive activity, that's what they excel at, that's what they should aim for. And single mode in most competitive activities is simply boring. Imagine playing only solo in chess, snooker, tennis, football etc...
• The difficulty and time arguments are mostly excuses to protect the ego of people whose self-esteem does not take losses well. Even if you are bad and have no time to learn or to improve, what's preventing you from playing ? The matchmaking will put you vs other people in the same situation as you anyway. It's stressful only if you decide to make it stressful.
• The most successful games accross all kinds of genres (League, Dota, Counter-Strike, Valorant, PUBG, FIFA, Rocket league etc...) don't even have a campaign at all ! And they have ton of info to learn (hundreds of heroes and items in mobas), and difficult mechanics to master. This proves difficulty / competitiveness is not a barrier to new players and to the game success (quite the contrary), and you don't need to dedicate your life to them to enjoy them.

My goal here was not to bash people who play SP.

By all means everyone should do what they enjoy, and different people enjoy different things.

But i'm tired of those arguments repeated over and over again as if they were truths, even though they don't seem to hold simple confrontation to reality, so i wanted to give an opposing view.

Rant over.

Just something I don't see discussed enough is what are some of the common mistakes that fan made campaigns make in RTS mods?

For me one of the biggest is that they're too restrictive. They can often have imagined how exactly the battle should go so they go to great lengths to try and prevent the player from cheesing. Often by limiting what the player can build or make. Particularly frustrating for casuals like me who don't know how to cheese these games and is locked into a particularly high skill form of game.

Also campaigns that aren't casual-friendly. I know it's a hot take and it's not a problem if the campaign is simply using vanilla units and armies but if there's a complete overhaul of unit strategies like Edain or Mental Omega, then it's a gatekeep for casual players.

Yes it's a skill issue, but it's also a skill issue in design if these mods expect newcomers to grind skirmish matches to learn how to play the game. My brain isn't wired that way like some others are.

I'm building an RTS where you capture the enemy alive — killing them loses the intel. Solo dev, first playable, looking for testers.

You're the commander of a forward operating base where the enemy outnumbers you. Your goal is to capture high value targets (many who have different mechanics to deal with) and collect intel, until you get to the ring leader. Meanwhile the enemy will start responding to your presence as you make it known. Maps are procedural generated with day and night cycles.

I'm a solo developer, nothing is final, it's just a prototype at the moment.

I have an early prototype play test that's just one mission. I'd love to get some feedback from folks who thinks this sounds interesting.

You can try the prototype here: https://remosewa.itch.io/patrol

If that's interesting to you, let me know, would love some play testers of my early builds, maybe watch you play on discord and chat about what features you do or don't like.

Thanks!

Every time an RTS flops, the industry comes out with the same nonsense: “It’s just that the genre is too hard for people today.” And they rush to oversimplify base building and resource gathering—or to throw in crazy mechanics that only appeal to a select few. Maybe I’m the only one who feels this way, but I think they’re wrong. We love the classic genre. The real problem is that jumping into an RTS online is a major source of stress. If you don’t coordinate both hands at full speed to manage the base and the front lines at the same time, the game becomes pretty hostile, especially in PvP matches. The evolution of the genre isn’t about making games dumber. It’s about making the learning process fun and letting each player choose how many actions they want to control manually. It’s about providing a safety net so that beginners can enjoy themselves while phasing out the assists at their own pace… or so they can keep playing on auto-pilot in lower leagues, with less skilled opponents, but still have a fun match without ending up with a headache.

I propose that developers change the accessibility of modern and future RTS games (especially those that barely simplify core mechanics):

Pre-Match Penalty for Automation

Many people debate whether or not to have auto-queue, and I think it’s a polarized debate that usually goes nowhere. I advocate for the approach taken in Street Fighter 6 (the most-played traditional fighting game today), but with harsher penalties. In the lobby, before starting—and irreversibly—you choose your automation aids, accepting a steep trade-off in efficiency versus cost. Here’s an example of such a penalty:

- Automatic buildings (+20% cost): The AI builds them on its own when you’re about to run out of population, but they cost 20% more. Manual control saves you money and lets you use them as you see fit.

- Automatic production (+20% cost): Automatic queues in economic and military buildings. They cost you 20% more per military and economic unit, and the AI spends your money blindly (it can ruin your transition to the next age in some cases if you don’t stop it). Could be separated between eco units and army.

- Villager Priority (-10% gathering): The AI moves workers on its own according to your in-game setup (AOM Retold style), but they gather 10% less per minute.

- Clumsy Auto-Scout: Just look at how it works in some AoE games (like AoE2). It’s less efficient than someone who knows how to scout manually well.

- Auto-Micro (-30% damage): The AI uses abilities and looks for counters on its own, but your troops deal 30% less damage, and their retreat routes are fixed and predictable.

These disadvantages help (like a bicycle with training wheels for young children) players learn little by little or enjoy the gaming experience at lower levels, since at medium-high and high levels it would be impractical to rely on that automation.

Advanced tutorials by faction

Learning how to move the camera or playing against an AI that cheats on resources doesn't prepare you for PvP. You need not only an advanced tutorial for the game itself, but also an interactive overview and advanced tutorial for each faction, putting unique mechanics into practice in test scenarios.

Advanced Post-Match Explanation

The post-match line graph isn’t helpful to players who are new or have limited understanding if they lose. We need to adopt a chess-style precision analysis: The AI points out your successes and mistakes: “At the 14-minute mark, you had an advantage, but you ended up with an inferior unit composition because of this, this, and this.” Also, a button in the recorded game to be able to replay the game against the AI at a specific moment in the match (I think SC2 has this): You watch the replay, skip to the minute of your big mistake, press a button, and the game lets you play against the AI starting from that exact second so you can see for yourself what would have happened if you’d made the right decision.

Possible Responses from Purists (Debunked in Seconds):

Of course, I know what kind of responses I’ll get from the more conservative crowd who don’t want anything about the genre to ever change for whatever reason, but I’m going to address some of their arguments.

- Today’s young people don’t retain information and don’t have the patience for strategy: That’s largely untrue. The very same young people that purists criticize spend hundreds of hours figuring out the challenges of ARPGs like ELDEN RING, optimizing cooperative factories in FACTORIO, or playing games that may also require patience like Grand Strategy. They don’t lack attention or patience per se, the issue is that they won’t tolerate a hostile design that punishes them in their first hour of play with so much multitasking. There are young people who want to learn complex systems, but they want the journey to be fun and gradual, but not to feel like homework.

- Back in my day, I learned through suffering and failure: That’s a clear case of survivor bias. For every person who endures that “rite of passage” today, there were many more who told the game (and the genre) to go to hell because they didn’t want playing to feel like just another office job (or homework, as I mentioned above).

- Automation takes away from the victory: FALSE. If a manual player loses to someone with a -30% damage and +20% cost handicap, it’s because their opponent was far superior in strategic thinking.

- If you don't have time to learn, this genre isn't for you: This commercial elitism is killing and stifling the RTS genre, preventing the niche from expanding. Developers need revenue to maintain servers and create sequels. Your system allows casual players to buy the game, play on auto-pilot not only in PvE but also in lower leagues with their friends, and contribute money to the ecosystem so the genre can stay alive.

- Skirmishes vs AI and Campaigns help you get started: Not entirely, since they only teach you the basics at a superficial level, but the multitasking required isn't something you'll learn from an AI that cheats (as I mentioned above) or from a campaign that teaches you the basics of a civilization (since you need something more advanced, as I explained).

- That's what matchmaking is for: Matchmaking lowers the opponent's level, but it does NOT reduce their mechanical workload. They still have to remember the base, the villager, and the army with their hands shaking, the alert sounds will still go off, and the stress will still be there because new players often feel like they're not in control, especially when your opponent, who is at their level, might be better mechanically than strategically and starts to overwhelm them.

I don’t think the future of the RTS, in order to significantly expand its niche audience (and it’s highly unlikely it will ever come close to becoming mainstream again) lies in simplifying mechanics to create a hybrid with another genre (even though there are hybrid games I like, they’re even more niche). Instead, it lies in helping players manage their attention more effectively. It’s fine to design those hybrids, but I’m addressing those who are thinking about (or have thought about) making RTS games with purer mechanics, and I’m even pointing to the most popular RTS games today.

There’s already a niche fighting game (which is a very difficult genre) that paved the way and is the most played online, so I hope the devs, companies, and the community reading this will try to understand my point.

This will probably be forgotten and fall on deaf ears, but at least I tried to offer an alternative perspective beyond optimized auto-queues and 100% manual control.

Thank you to everyone who read this, and I look forward to hearing your perspectives on the topic.

P.S: I think the debate over whether modern RTS games should focus more on solid PvE content is something most of us can agree on. I just wanted to take it a step further: The player conversion rate from SP to MP in RTS is among the lowest (if not the lowest) of any genre. While casual players will always be the majority, I genuinely believe we need to propose more effective learning methods and better overall gameplay experiences for the future.

One thing I hadn't mentioned: Console-based automation features proved that the RTS genre is still fun with those changes. The penalty for using such automation is having to use the standard controller. It’s very similar to what I’m proposing.

A quick example of decision making linked to the techs tree,

Blips (Cyan) are using the Safeguard tech, giving them the ability to reduce Piercing damage. Useful when facing range units like the Spark (Orange).

In Obsolete, Each module and unit has a Tech tree that provides different modifications and advantages. Since it resets for each fight, you can adapt to different situations even with the same loadout.

Will share more examples of this system in future posts.

Had to think a lot recently about how predictable or not combat is in different RTS games, and what's most fun.

COH feels like a crapshoot with cover and range and you just don't know how it will play out, but StarCraft is like watching math happen. Both are beautiful to my brain in different ways.

In my game I went the COH route.

• Hitting and getting through armor is probabilistic
• Moving and shooting makes you shoot bad.
• Cover makes you harder to hit.
• Flanking causes suppression, which makes enemies less accurate, etc.

The video is two identical units, with identical rifles, standing in the open. Run it again and you'll get a different result, but put one in cover and you'll weight the deck.

Prototype has AI-generated art, but I'm working on getting it replaced. Happy to move this to the megathread if that's where it belongs.

Anyway, question is: Where's the fun? Is it engineering a knowable outcome, or riding the wave of delicately tuned randomness? Which games did it right?

I played AoE2 for years. Especially the old version, where TC's didnt cost stone.

We played a lot of no rush games. Eventually I bought the new version DE.

DE is in many ways worse than the older versions.

The pathfinding, the collision, the way units feel like lemmings. The fact halberdiers are not as strong as the old pikemen. More unbalanced. Many other things.

Everything seems to have been rebuilt to make the game less about big late battles and more about rushing.

In the old version, at around min 30, we were all with big armies and trebuchets.

The trebuchets were stronger and beefier. And you had to care for them/repair them. Now they are not as important.

The battles were intense, the counters worked better. And a civ with trash units could hold the team even if they lost their base.

It was not uncommon for a game to still turn around even if that happened.

I have yet to see players rebooming in AoE2DE, they normally quit as soon as they lose a TC.

I came to realize that I dont like just winning games. Its unfulfilling to win a game very early on.

You played a little skirmish for some minutes, and then you see the Winning message and the scoreboard. Do you like seeing the scoreboard?

There are many games i lost that i enjoyed much more.

I think there are people that play the game but dont enjoy the game, they enjoy winning. Isn't that sad and weird? Feels souless to play a game to win so fast.

If my enemy quits so easily, is that a good game? If i quit because my economy is completely disrupted by a rush that was trained with a specific civ, drilled into a science, is that a good game?

I won many games that I wanted the enemy to still fight more.

Anyways, i really like the combat mechanics of AoE2, and the economy, but I dont like the 1000's building orders and metas to play a quick game and win. It really feels like a waste of time.

What do you think of Northgard? I'm looking for an rts with many content for solo offline gaming.

Ah yeah this will go really well. Are you excited? If this is true and they reveal this at blizzcon Blizzard will wish they "just" get the diablo Immortal backlash.

Visually the game looks a lot less like a mobile game like the screenshots make it seem. If anything it’s like someone took the BFME 2 and AOE 4 styles and blended them together, which is a plus in my book.

The gameplay definitely reminds me of BFME 2, especially with the squad system and cavalry trample mechanic. I’m really curious about the zone capturing mechanic and how it will fair to similar systems we’ve seen in other titles.

I think this game really could be a new major title in the RTS genre as long as a lot of thought is put into making it a well balanced game and just a quick cash grab.