Co-op RTS

Avatar image for fbomb
Fbomb

1177

Forum Posts

99

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#1  Edited By Fbomb

Having listened to the gripes that Jeff and Ryan have with modern Real Time Strategy game, I'm wondering if anyone has ever done a co-op mode, where one person concentrates on resource collecting/infrastructure building, and the other person focuses purely on managing the troops. Obviously the two would be talking to each other throughout, so that the resource guy wouldn't pump out all the wrong units, but it would make things a lot more manageable. I don't like to micromanage to extent you need to in StarCraft, in order to be competitive, and switching back and forth from unit micro management to base/resource micromanagement doesn't make sense. Majesty is a neat idea, but it's only half of a game when compared to the complexity of hardcore RTS games. It would be brilliant to have two people, one acting as a civic planner/engineer, the other as a general of an army, working in unison. 
 
Does this game mode exist somewhere, because I'd really like to try something like that.

Avatar image for aetos
Aetos

1702

Forum Posts

713

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#2  Edited By Aetos

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.

Avatar image for jadeskye
Jadeskye

4392

Forum Posts

2125

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

#3  Edited By Jadeskye

Supcom could turn into that. one reason i loved it so much.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

#4  Edited By Video_Game_King
@Tactical_Kill said:
"

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.

"
I think it could work with voice chat. Hell, it'd feel like an authentic war that way.
Avatar image for nukesniper
nukesniper

1284

Forum Posts

779

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 7

#5  Edited By nukesniper

You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield. 
 
I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here)

Avatar image for fbomb
Fbomb

1177

Forum Posts

99

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#6  Edited By Fbomb
@Tactical_Kill said:
"

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.

"
Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side.
Avatar image for fbomb
Fbomb

1177

Forum Posts

99

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#7  Edited By Fbomb
@nukesniper said:
" You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield.  I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here) "
Really? I've only just bought the game (it keeps crashing on me when I finish map 7 of the first campaign now), but that would make my day... especially if it carried over into the next game.
Avatar image for aetos
Aetos

1702

Forum Posts

713

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#8  Edited By Aetos
@Fbomb said:
" @Tactical_Kill said:
"

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.

"
Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side. "

What I meant was that I could see the two players arguing about what to do. Say the guy controlling the military units wants a specific unit. If the resource/ buildings builder thinks he should do something else he may not build that building and could screw up the military guy's strategy. Or he could build something and use up resources the military guy wants for more units. Unless they work perfect together I can just see it going badly.
Avatar image for fbomb
Fbomb

1177

Forum Posts

99

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#9  Edited By Fbomb

So, I looked up Team Melee, and unfortunately no servers really support it, and it's just a total free-for-all. It'd be neat if one person was restricted to defensive things, and the other to offense, though. You would absolutely need voicechat to coordinate, but it could be pretty intense, since strategy could get a lot more creative with less multitasking residing on one person.

Avatar image for fbomb
Fbomb

1177

Forum Posts

99

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

#10  Edited By Fbomb
@Tactical_Kill said:
" @Fbomb said:
" @Tactical_Kill said:
"

I haven't ever heard of anything like that being done. Its a neat idea but it sounds like it could get complicated.

"
Well, take Starcraft 2, don't allow one player to control millitary units, don't allow the other to control buildings/resource vehicles. It's like half the complication, unless you're thinking of something on the technical side. "
What I meant was that I could see the two players arguing about what to do. Say the guy controlling the military units wants a specific unit. If the resource/ buildings builder thinks he should do something else he may not build that building and could screw up the military guy's strategy. Or he could build something and use up resources the military guy wants for more units. Unless they work perfect together I can just see it going badly. "
Sure, that could absolutely happen, but I don't think too many people would play with absolute strangers. It has the potential to be pretty effective if the two people align tot a good strategy from the outset.
Avatar image for rockanomics
Rockanomics

1187

Forum Posts

8000

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By Rockanomics

Red Alert 3 did a full co-op campaign but that was just having two players. What alot the RTSes of the world have done is just remove the base building aspect almost entirely. (Dawn of War 2, C&C 4, ect)

Avatar image for aetos
Aetos

1702

Forum Posts

713

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#12  Edited By Aetos
@Fbomb: I could totally see it working out and being fun, if the two players agree on what to do and have a plan like you said.  
Its an interesting idea and would be cool to try out.
Avatar image for nukesniper
nukesniper

1284

Forum Posts

779

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 7

#13  Edited By nukesniper
@Fbomb said:
" @nukesniper said:
" You can do that in Starcraft 1 in fact. You can put people on teams where they would control one army. So, you can set up 3 players vs 3 players, but with only 2 armies on the battlefield.  I believe the game mode in SC1 was simply Team Melee, or Team (gametype here) "
Really? I've only just bought the game (it keeps crashing on me when I finish map 7 of the first campaign now), but that would make my day... especially if it carried over into the next game. "
Yeah, it doesn't force people into certain jobs, but you could do it that way if you wanted.