I'm a big RTS fan, and have been really interested in the new setup with World in Conflict, where each player on a team controls one category of the army, i.e. infantry or armor. I think it's a neat idea splitting the job of controlling the army, and makes commanding more like it is in the real situation-you have to work with other commanders. I for one, however, would like to see the battle split up in a different way.
Whenever I play a hard core game of RTS, I find it extremely annoying having to command my forces in battle, gain resources, build more units, and create base defenses all at once. What if the job was split into one person controlling the units, and the other getting the resources, providing the units, and creating the base defenses. Some might say that the latter player would get the short of the stick, and I understand that, but I for one enjoy creating a robust fortress that could withstand anything the enemy could throw at me.
This setup would make the battles better, because the player controlling the units could finally put into place well-thought-out strategies. He would have the time to do so! Same goes for the other player. Like I said above, he could create an amazing fortress as a base. No more flashing back and forth between the battle and your home base, now you can actually focus on one thing at a time. Also, communication between the two players on a team would become imperative so that the right units could be created, and a dependence would form. Battle buddies would become a reality, and friends fighting with friends would be amazing fun. It'd be like an RTS co-op!
I understand that there are many problems with this setup, especially the many occasions in which one player would have nothing to do. For example, in the beginning, the unit-controlling player would have no units to control, but it could be set up in which each team starts out with a few units. Also, the setup could be changed in which the unit-controlling player could have control of collecting resources. A lot of modifications could be made, and I'm sure there would still be at least one problem no matter how you did it, but I do believe it would be cool. What do you think? (btw sry 'bout how long this is)
Whenever I play a hard core game of RTS, I find it extremely annoying having to command my forces in battle, gain resources, build more units, and create base defenses all at once. What if the job was split into one person controlling the units, and the other getting the resources, providing the units, and creating the base defenses. Some might say that the latter player would get the short of the stick, and I understand that, but I for one enjoy creating a robust fortress that could withstand anything the enemy could throw at me.
This setup would make the battles better, because the player controlling the units could finally put into place well-thought-out strategies. He would have the time to do so! Same goes for the other player. Like I said above, he could create an amazing fortress as a base. No more flashing back and forth between the battle and your home base, now you can actually focus on one thing at a time. Also, communication between the two players on a team would become imperative so that the right units could be created, and a dependence would form. Battle buddies would become a reality, and friends fighting with friends would be amazing fun. It'd be like an RTS co-op!
I understand that there are many problems with this setup, especially the many occasions in which one player would have nothing to do. For example, in the beginning, the unit-controlling player would have no units to control, but it could be set up in which each team starts out with a few units. Also, the setup could be changed in which the unit-controlling player could have control of collecting resources. A lot of modifications could be made, and I'm sure there would still be at least one problem no matter how you did it, but I do believe it would be cool. What do you think? (btw sry 'bout how long this is)