Question Command and Conquest

[legolasyiu]

Is Command & Conquest: War Age a good name for RTS game ?

 

[Brian Boru]

Is Command & Conquest: War Age a good name for RTS game ?

I doubt it, asking for a Cease & Desist!

 

[legolasyiu]

I doubt it, asking for a Cease & Desist!

Why? Is it too close to another name of a game C&C? Just want to make sure it is cool but unique. Any suggestions?
How about "War Command: Conquer Age" ?

 

[Brian Boru]

War Command: Conquer Age

I assume you're aware of EA's Command & Conquer franchise? Your suggestions sound way too close to it imo—but I'm not a lawyer

 

[Zloth]

I think that's rather the idea. Hmmm... Cease & Conquer: Desistance War? Then hope the judge throws the case out rather than deal with the game name/charge name confusion.

 

[legolasyiu]

I think that's rather the idea. Hmmm... Cease & Conquer: Desistance War? Then hope the judge throws the case out rather than deal with the game name/charge name confusion.

Haha. That is funny. A game that you play as lawyer and the objective is to help developers make sure their game name will not break the copyright law!

Seriously, how about “War Command: Dawn of a New Age”

 

[legolasyiu]

A good few of the C&C/RA missions were of the 'takeover and repair this old base' kind, which were fun, but of course funneled your strategy in a particular direction. I generally prefer more freedom re where to start the base—plonk it here and get going, or spend some time to get a better position. Interesting choices, that's what strategy is all about.

I'd like to see larger maps where you can found 2-3 main bases, with resources claimed linked to what the base can produce. So a metal mining base can produce vehicles, a food-rich base soldiers, a uranium deposit = navy, etc.


I'm with that. That's why C&C/RA are my favs of the genre, there's time to think and deploy—at least in single player.

Your resource idea is fascinating. Than each different resource will correspond to another type of unit. That will make it very interesting RTS scenario. And some super units will also requires metal and uranium.

 

[Brian Boru]

each different resource will correspond to another type of unit

Right, I think that has potential on large maps, especially procedurally generated ones—the tech is probably good enough to do that now, so we could see such a revival of RTS this decade… here's hoping!

4X does this, to a degree. Eg in Civilization you must own a Horse resource to be able to produce cavalry, must have Oil to make aircraft & navy, etc. It makes the metagame very strategic—as they say, amateurs talk firepower, pros talk logistics.

 

[Hitobat]

I'd like to see larger maps where you can found 2-3 main bases, with resources claimed linked to what the base can produce. So a metal mining base can produce vehicles, a food-rich base soldiers, a uranium deposit = navy, etc.

In a weird way this reminds me of the game Z by Bitmap Bros, and probably other similar-ish games since. Because abstractly, if the type of resource determines the units then it's close to capturing/controlling a unit production building on the map. Except I would guess the idea is you choose which type of soldier/vehicle etc.. to "buy"?

 

[Brian Boru]

it's close to capturing/controlling a unit production building on the map

Yes, same idea—resources would add more management and present more choices than a building would. Eg a metal resource can make vehicles or air units, or both if it's a large resource. The type of metal could determine whether basic or advanced units are possible.

If you have supply lines between your bases, then resources can be combined—so you might need both oil and metal to produce armored units, and advanced metal with the oil to produce air.

 

[legolasyiu]

Good idea for resource management for RTS, Brian.

 

[Brian Boru]

Mod action: moved above posts into their own thread. Used to be in:
https://forums.pcgamer.com/threads/can-real-time-strategy-come-back-from-the-brink-of-death.1931/