Base Building, And Why It Is Fun

[virtualfog]

It is part of the strategy regarding command and conquer. Of course you could just have command of a small group of units and that is it, but this is not just about commanding. The game is called command and conquer.

You cannot conquer if you do not have a base. Do you see U.S. and NATO soldiers fighting without bases of operation? Heck no!

It is fun to have buildings to build up, and defenses to place. It is fun also to have tiers to upgrade to and be able to even upgrade buildings and units through your structures.

Resource gathering added even more strategy to it, cause you had to know how to gather quickly and also be mindful of your collectors or you lost them.

Not that all missions have to be about building bases, but it is indeed one of the core selling points for me with this franchise.

When C&C did away with bases and put their movable support, dps, whatever idea in place...it sucked the fun out.

We loved building super weapons, awesome defenses, and really cool overpowered super units! Or at least I know I sure as hell did.

Anyway, TLDR: C&C without bases and resource gathering of some sort (or resource management) is just plain terribad.

[ChromeCommando]

Base building, Teching up and Conquering your opponent with strategy and skill is what makes a great RTS

[stormgear]

Base Building, And Why It Is Fun
Simple: Create and destroy >=D


(wat? no evil smiley?)

[m4dn3ss]

Base building adds to the strategy... but it's boring as hell, it's the blowing stuff up that makes RTS fun :p

[Zaptagious]

Sometimes I just like to build bases just for aesthetical purposes :D

[EA_Agm]

Base building adds to the strategy... but it's boring as hell, it's the blowing stuff up that makes RTS fun :p

This! You are 100% correct.

Base building is a "necessary evil" of RTS games.

Whether people like it or not, the focus of RTS games is units, not base building and resource gathering. Base building and resource gathering are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. They only exist to regulate the flow of units, and to give units value. By giving units value, it means using them and controlling them has meaning and consequences, which adds to the experience of creating and using units.

It's important for there to be some kind of economy/production, but it shouldn't dominate the gameplay the way it does in StarCraft 2. StarCraft 2 isn't as fun as C&C games because it's a lot of "playing by yourself" as you build your economy, and your base etc. But it's still more fun than C&C 4.

The key for any new C&C game is to find a balance between C&C 4 and StarCraft 2.

[Vivo]

Base building can be fun, I used to spend hours and hours for building bases back when Tiberium Dawn was a new game. Every building, base defense and even fences had to be exactly on right position.

But if you think this from esports point of view, even though it's necessary for a good RTS game, it's not very entertaining to watch other people turtling on a choke point or on a top of a hill while building their bases and gathering resources.

[m4dn3ss]

The key for any new C&C game is to find a balance between C&C 4 and StarCraft 2.
I personally liked RA3

[Lebelge]

The key for any new C&C game is to find a balance between C&C 4 and StarCraft 2.


LoL ... For me CNC must return to the base : Ressources, base and tanks ... No need to copy other games ... CNC is a style of RTS. The most important is the balance between faction and the multiplayer side.

The cinematics and history must take a big part too, but you don't play cinematics ... I prefer a good game without cinematics than superb cinematics with a poor game ...

[EA_Agm]

I personally liked RA3

I tend to agree, though I felt the economy was a little TOO simple. There wasn't enough to harass, and usually killing a harvester was all or nothing. There should have been a better way to scale your economy that wasn't as repetitive as it is in SC2, but not as simple as it was in RA3.

Further, the game really, really, really needs workers instead of MCVs. There is so much depth to the worker system that the MCV system just can't match. All that tower pushing nonsense was because of the MCV system.

[Lebelge]

In RA3, they want to simplify too much the game ... i m agree with Agm Launcher with the role of workers.

[Cypher[CS]]

This was posted before:
theravencypher.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-work-and-no-play-make-rts-dull.html

But please, by all means, check it out more and see if you have more to add.
I'm compiling all responses there and everywhere else into a sequel article. So put your 2 cents in.

[SGTbonehead]

Generals was good. The resource management and use of worker units to build structures was the first of its kind in CNC. The next game was CNC4 which didn't go so well.

[Heron]

First off, I am a proponent of the MCV system. And I still believe in it. What I think necessary is to show there's a midway to these things.

This is a half-baked idea thrown out there, but IMO, the MCV system can remain, but instead of Cranes in C&C3, a worker unit is instead produced. Its primary purpose is to harvest resources like a harvester, but it can build all buildings save the MCV, albeit at a slower pace than the MCV system and there is a small premium to building buildings this way. The MCV is a special 1-of unit/structure that allows a rapid buildup of structures and it will make losing the MCV a big deal, but not the big handicap that ends games. It still handicaps you, and makes the MCV still a target to deal with, however, since the small premium adds up.

[virtualfog]

I think we all also need to look at End of Nations this time around. Sure the next C&C isn't going to be an MMORTS, but the new developers could learn from Petroglyph! Petroglyph studios has a ton of former WestWood Studios employess in their employ, and I can't wait to see how End of Nations turns out because of this.

Also, the RTS World in Conflict was pretty highly rated and has about a 90 metascore as well. There are a lot of cool ideas that this game used to make the RTS interesting, and I enjoyed the Demo enough to buy the complete edition.

World in Conflict removes base building in favor of support and drop zone type abilities. The way the Dev's created the game made their design work very well. I think that C&C can pull from the idea of drop zones for support units anywhere on the map where you have done something to get them. This idea would perhaps allow us to have bases as footholds like Cypher mentions in his blog, but also allow us to quene up units we create in our structures and them drop them on certain areas of the game map. So in effect it would be a nice extension on what drop support abilities we have had in past games with the option to customize your units. As you progress in skill throughout a mission you can drop more and more units into the battlefield.

Now, I did mention End of Nations for a reason. There are a few things that set that RTS apart from other RTS games I have seen. One, the huge bosses you have to fight, or giant guns and supersized gigantic fortress tanks they have. Size does matter sometimes, and man Petroglyph has made giant cannons and super weapons look very interesting and sexy for an MMO! Second, the maps are fricking huge. Now they made them huge for a reason, and that is so that many many players can be on one map, and this adds to the epic MMORTS feel of multiple battles going on anywhere. However, I like the large map ideas here, and I tend to get tired when we have to deal with a map that is much smaller then it could have been. To me again, size can be epic but it is in how it is designed initially to make the game a fun experience.

A foothold base can add to support and future building of your new bases in a very large map, where we no longer have to click on a new location in a map, but merely continue on into a town as we continue our assault. Keep in mind this is a VERY rough draft idea here, and I simply thinking that adding larger map spaces with even more missions in them would feel epic, though it might not work out like that. The idea would be a cutscene between the next major mission in such cases, but with also a short mission screen to aprise you of the situation on the same battlefield.

These are just random ideas thrown around, but they do not negate the idea of base building, and yes it can be boring initially just to build a base. Perhaps we should have to send in the rangers or specforces to help clear a landing zone before we build our bases? I would also like to see the ability to steal tech from the enemy with an R&D lab and add those items to your own weapons or troops.

[5onic]

Base building, Teching up and Conquering your opponent with strategy and skill is what makes a great RTS

I agree :D

[ykc900]

World in conflict has an excellent rating , but it is a game for "1 week". I played it in 2008 and ath the beginning I could say only "wow!". But after a week I only said "that is all??"so small capabilities it had. And many are agree with me - this is game is near dead in multiplayer.

[Coolness7]

Sometimes I just like to build bases just for aesthetical purposes :D
Heheh yeah, and then use SWs on it for the fireworks

[raKeto]

Destroying your Opponents Base is even more Fun! :D

[Moongrave]

Destroying your Opponents Base is even more Fun! :D

Capturing their whole base if funnier

[Commander32]

I like in in generals where we can spam Super weapons, lol its fuuun.....'

cant have a SW if there aint no base to blow up....

[Coolness7]

Ha yeah, still a badass game even though its almost 7 years old

[VasquezMkII]

I think that base building is only needed because... how else are you going to tech up and produce an army.

Without bases you don't have much to work with and that usually doesn't make a good RTS.

[Coolness7]

It doesnt make an RTS at all, it makes an RTT

[Borreh]

My personal opinion is that I would want to play a game in which you do build the base, but the units are crucial to the gameplay. In usuall RTS games, units are throw away stuff, since you can always make more.

Now my idea is: Change the focus of the base, let it not be a unit creator, but a place when units can be supported.

How? Maybie by limiting the amount of units in the field: They can be produced, but are dropped in few minute delays, for example, by dropships or transport planes every 5 or 10 minutes. Between those 5 or 10 minutes, the units you possess are the only thing you have until reinforcements arrive.

And the base: Make it be a support for units. Since they arrive by transports, make the buildings actually DO something instead of producing units and unlocking tech.

For example: Having units to refuel/rearm by driving to an armory. Special unit powers, like long range barrage, unlocked by radar/comm uplink structure. Instead of factories: Repair pads. Long range artillery as a building. Economy dependant on silos, for example: Having a very small amount of supply (money, credits, whatever) avaible, like 2500, and having to expand it by building silos, each adding like 250 or 500.

The point is: Have a smaller number of buildings out of which every single is important.

E.g:

ConYard: Builds stuff, crucial
Refinery: Collects resources via harvesters, crucial
Silo: Expands economic possibilities, crucial
Power plant: Grants power for structures, crucial
Landing Pad: Units are dropped here from transports, crucial
Armory: Rearms units, stores upgrades crucial
ComSat: Provides intelligence, support powers, crucial
Support pad: Heals nearby units, stores upgrades, crucial

Add defence buildings, artillery structures, shield generators, etc.

This is only an example, the system may be different, but here is the idea: With only few building types avaible, each one of them is important: You do not build a building to *have it* because it unlocks something, most probably abstract, like a +1 to siege tank armor. You must have those buildings, and a lot of them, near the front, near your units, because they directly interact with them and thus can actively change the tide of the battle.

I think such role of basebuilding is more engaging, since you'd have to have a lot of outposts all over the map in order to succesfuly support your units.