作者：Michel Mony

免责声明：当我开始编写第三部分时，我希望能够在此结束关于RTS的描述，但我却发现还有许多需要添加的内容，所以可能还需要写第四篇文章。比起投机取巧，我决定继续突出一些亮点并为之后的内容留出一些空间。

第二纪元

存在许多方法能够给RTS历史进行分类。为了本文，我们将以“第二纪元”进行假设，即指代《魔兽争霸：人类与半兽人》之后几个月发行的游戏。这些游戏都是基于对多人游戏互动（即首次出现于《魔兽争霸》中）的足够观察而进行开发的，并且也更加理解多人游戏元素对于RTS类型的影响。

在很多方面，将RTS类型的焦点从传统的单人玩家体验转移到具有竞争性的电子竞技将始于玩家有机会与其他人一起游戏以及游戏开发者对于这种体验的反应。这为开发者定义了全新的视角和目标，并且也是大多数决策所依赖的根本参数。

我们已经知道《沙丘2》是推动这类型发展的强大先驱。而《魔兽争霸：人类与兽人》则是基于对《沙丘2》的测试以及将这一游戏的可能性扩展到多人游戏领域的尝试，并且事先也不清楚这一过程具有多少尚未被开发的潜能。

基于多人游戏体验进行创造并改变生产焦点是有意义的：一方面，似乎我们不能再往RTS的致胜准则中添加或改变某些内容，多人游戏已经向我们证明能够作为一种零售盒功能而获得属于自己的销售份额。

这并不是一种缺少灵感的表现，但却是使RTS具体化的一种真正机遇。开发者并不想在RTS机制的运行方面发挥创造性，因为他们需要投入更多精力将多人游戏带到下一步骤中：将其变成一种体育运动（或象棋2.0般的存在）。

《魔兽争霸2》

《魔兽争霸2》是非常有趣的RTS游戏。与之前的所有游戏不同的是，这款游戏是基于开发者花一年时间去观察玩家与最初多人RTS游戏互动的结果。暴雪的赌注得到了回报：这场竞争给RTS创造了一个全新的维度。他们意识到了多人游戏对RTS领域的巨大影响并通过发行一款代表RTS历史的决定性时刻的游戏而有效地利用了这一优势。

值得一提的是，《命令与征服》的发行时间较早，并且因为其多人游戏元素与故事线执行得到许多赞扬。为了证明我认为推进《魔兽争霸2》的选择是正确了，我将引用以下内容：

“据说，在1995年末发行时，《命令与征服》立马就获得了巨大的成功。它成为了电子游戏历史中最赚钱的一个游戏系列，它的名字也成为了RTS的代名词。然而这款游戏并非初创。来自同一个开发商的《沙丘2》是最早塑造出RTS游戏类型，而《命令与征服》在很多方面与之具有相同点。《命令与征服》之所以能够引起如此巨大的轰动是因为它完善了《沙丘2》的游戏理念，添加了一些关键的创新理念，从而为之后所有这类型游戏设定了一个标准。游戏中不同军队间的各种游戏风格便是现在许多RTS游戏的进步表现。此外，《命令与征服》的一些缺陷也清楚呈现出那些需要改进的领域。”

速度

当人们为多人游戏做好准备时，我们很快便发现《魔兽争霸：人类与半兽人》将花费人们太长时间。于是暴雪便注意到可以通过加快游戏速度而提升这类型游戏的玩家数量（让更多玩家可以加入游戏并完成更多游戏内容）。

最终他们用许多方法提升了游戏速度，而最主要的方法便是通过单位移动（这既能够影响经济也能够影响战斗）。

他们所期望的结果是能让游戏变得更短并保证人们能够更频繁地玩游戏，但这一新“速度”同样也带来了一些副作用。

因为游戏变得更快，玩家对于输入的精通就变得更加重要。游戏将慢慢偏离策略游戏（如《魔兽争霸：人类与半兽人）并进入让人畏惧的APM（每分钟操作数）领域。这里所存在的问题并不是UX（如《沙丘2》，因为游戏能够有效地提供《魔兽争霸：人类与半兽人》所呈现的的工具（多重选择，命令快捷键，控制群组），但是效果非常相似：每个玩家都会觉得有太多需要做的事并且还需要在特定时间明确最有意义的微观管理行动。

提升速度的另外一个副作用便是伴随而来的战略意义。因为单位创造仍然需要花费许多时间，但是随着单位的移动速度加快，这意味着创造单位vs在地图上移动单位的时间比例将提升。事实上，这也大大降低了防卫者的优势：单位将花费同样的创造时间，但在将这些单位变成增援部队前却不需要花费太多时间，从而导致防卫者在守护自己的基地时不能因为拥有“更多单位数”而获利。

随着防卫者的优势被削弱，盾牌也变得不那么有用，游戏将变成是关于在地图上突出一方的军力并尽早去控制它（双方都可以在敌人出现前察觉到他们的入侵并控制资源）。

这些关于速度的重大改变（尽管可能表现得不多）将成为未来游戏的重要元素以及“暴雪风格RTS”的基础之一。所有在《魔兽争霸2》之后诞生的暴雪RTS（《星际争霸1》，《星际争霸2》，《魔兽争霸3》）都将伴随着一些其它竞争性RTS元素。

流线型化

在《魔兽争霸2》中，时间是流线型化的。而行动是更加快速，且比起策略更加强调玩家执行。它将玩家呈现在一种匆忙的状态中并让他们带着紧张感走向胜利。

单位更具有扩展性，并且单位上限也得到了提高，将焦点转向了军事生存的恒流中。经济升级同样也减少了玩家对于农民的需求，并进一步专注于军事生产中。为了适应这种改变，多重选择工具应该扩展到9个单位去完善操作性，而单击行动（右击）也将实现快速命令。

这款游戏删除了道路理念和建筑布局限制。并整合了守望塔（防御性建筑），所以玩家能够监视地图上的任何特定位置。这在必要情况下也有助于玩家发动进攻。

为了支持“自由建造”，游戏允许玩家建造市政厅以及一些允许资源收集的代理建筑，基于较低价格降低或消除对于补给线的需求。结果便是集中军力变得更加普遍。

尽管大多数改变都很简单，但它们却改变了游戏属性：《魔兽争霸：人类与兽人》是关于尝试着保护农民砍伐遥远的森林或获得遥远的金子的较长补给线，而现在的游戏则更专注于经济或军事上的扩展。它告诉玩家这是现在玩游戏的新方式，并且它也与之前的游戏具有明显的差异性。

Shroud继续发展

然而在《魔兽争霸2》中还有一些创造性的存在。最重要的便是Shroud。到目前为止，大多数使用“战争迷雾”的游戏都未能给人留下深刻印象。地图被黑暗所笼罩，但一旦单位揭开了地图上的一部分，它将永远是可见的。

最初的战争迷雾更多是关于发现“地形”，而不是监视敌人的移动。

而Shroud，或者说是战争迷雾2.0进一步发展，即在没有一个单位瞄准地图的某些部分时。地形仍旧保留着（是静态的），但是敌人军队和建筑的相关信息趋于模糊：单位不再呈现出来，建筑也只能揭示特定领域最后的已知状态（这忽视了之后可能出现的任何改变）。

这对于多人游戏来说是一种理想的内含物，因为它将推动玩家去扩展自己的军力去获取所需要的信息。他们有可能选择监视敌人去了解对方将做什么，从而获得更好的条件。这是一种非常棒的系统，一直延续到《星际争霸2：自由之翼》出现前。

多余的资源？

自从《魔兽争霸：人类与兽人》以来，更多资源理念被应用到游戏中。《沙丘2》只拥有1种香料混合物。《魔兽争霸：人类与兽人》拥有2种，不过其实在开发过程中所设定的是3种（我猜第3种应该是岩石）。《魔兽争霸2》的开发团队选择使用第三种资源的理念继续前进，这将能够打开游戏的另一面。他们的选择是在游戏中后期呈现一种“高级”资源让玩家能够使用更高级的单位（海军）和单位升级（能够对非海军单位产生影响）。

与《帝国时代》不同的是，为了建立一支舰队，玩家需要在宣称所有权之前获得水的控制权，之后第一个控制海洋的玩家将能够拒绝敌人的访问并执行封锁任务。而唯一能够逃离这种封锁的方法便是利用空中单位。

考虑到石油并不能用于创造更强大单位，这算是一次较为棘手的移动，但更确切地说，打开一个完全不同的地层是可选择的项目。这能够渲染多余的石油。它的作用在于能够激发某种资源可以以某种形式的投资而得到利用的概念，这对于获得更高级的单位来说是有帮助的。尽管这就像是在描述一种不存在真正投资形式的废物一样，但是它对于建造建筑来说却是必要的。之后这一概念将被用于《星际争霸》（如Vespene Gas）等游戏中。

Z轴–空中单位

空中单位最初出现于《魔兽争霸2》中。他们能够交易大量资源去利用自由移动。这让玩家能够使用非常有效的侦查单位（Zeppelins）以及全地形侵袭单位（龙，鹰怪）。

空中单位同样也能够帮助平衡海军单位所存在的经济问题（如果你一开始不能控制海洋的话），同时他们也可以帮助玩家避开以下地形碰撞以及始料未及的角度。这将大大降低地面单位的价值（游戏邦注：尽管在1比1对抗赛中他们仍然是最强的）并提升混合武装策略的价值。

从那时以来空中单位便成为了许多RTS游戏的必要元素（特别是那些比起操作性更看重混合武装策略的游戏）。

地图编辑器

《魔兽争霸2》所伴随的的一个关键元素便是关卡编辑器：这是为游戏（可能是多人游戏）创造额外关卡的一个简单但却非常有效的方法，从而能让游戏持续更久。在暴雪风格的RTS中，关卡编辑器变成了事实（《星际争霸》，《魔兽争霸3》和《星际争霸2》都复制了它）并创造出了一些将出现在续集游戏/类型（《DOTA》/《英雄联盟》或MOBA类游戏便经常被说是源自《魔兽争霸3》的模式）中的受欢迎的地图。

《星际争霸》

《星际争霸》是我个人非常喜欢的一款游戏，所以我只能尽力保持中立的看法。从发行到今天，这始终是一款非常出色的游戏，它推动着暴雪的RTS系列的发展（《魔兽争霸》的最后一款游戏便是《魔兽争霸2》，暴雪似乎不想再推动这一系列）。

不对称性

《星际争霸》的显著贡献便是不对称性。与之前使用了一组相似单位或经济格言的RTS游戏不同的是，《星际争霸》打破了一些规则而呈现出了3个截然不同的派别（这对于之后的平衡来说简直就是一场噩梦，这也表明它需要经受各种补丁）。

这一变形深深侵入游戏设计中，即“建筑者”或“经济”单位将发生巨大的变化。

例如，Terran SCV（建筑者）是主流（在建造期间将留在建筑工地，之后会恢复其职责），而Protoss Probe则可以开始建造建筑并在Zerg’s Drone需要为了创造生活楼而做出牺牲的时候离开。

此外，每个派别都有其特有的安置限制（例如Terrans可以建在任何地方，Protoss需要设置强大的电力网）。

他们的单位容量同时也是由不同方式所决定。Terrans必须创造一个专门用于增加食物量的建筑，而Protoss将把这一能力与他们的Pylon结合在一起（以对付安置限制），Zerg则将分配其中一个单位（Overlord）去维护他们的军队。

最后，每个派别的单位在处理损害的方式也是不同的：

Terrans能够承受损害，而如果超过一定限制的话他们的结构便会开始坍塌。他们可以使用建筑单位修复损害，但只能是用于结构和交通工具，他们还拥有一个特定的医疗单位能够治愈有机单位的创伤。

Protoss拥有能够快速再生的盾牌（这在战争期间特别有帮助），但一旦他们的生命遭到威胁，他们便不能彻底治愈它。

Zerg是所有有机单位，拥有持久的再生率（尽管速度较慢），这让他们能够发动冲突并更有效地执行“击跑配合战术”。

他们不仅不会分享任何单位，并且他们的所有单位从根本上看来都是不同的：

基本的Terran单位是一种远程单位（海军），Protoss则具有一个强大的近战单位（Zealot），而Zergs采取的是数量战。

他们的技术树是完全不同的，每一“层”的体验也是不同的：

Terrans可以附加特定附件到建筑上（通讯卫星，机械工厂等）以打开特定的升级和单位。

Protoss非常依赖于建造内部从属关系（需要X去建造Y）。

Zergs必须将Hive升级到更高级别以打开更远的建筑。

总之，每个派别给人的感觉都是不同的，对于只经历过单一派别的玩家来说很难猜到敌人会呈现出什么。它非常强调游戏体验与战术规划，但这仍然是基于APM。

食物成本

尽管每个派别处理食物成本的方式不同，但系统本身其实发生了全面的变化。与之前游戏不同的是，在这里每个单位都拥有独自的食物成本。例如Zealot价值2个食物，而Marine只值1个，Zerglings则值0.5个。

尽管这可能只是一个较小的改变，它却大幅度地改变了游戏。早前游戏所存在的问题是它其实可以更好地节约资源并基于更高层单位去最大化食物数量（如《魔兽争霸2》中的兽人或骑士便比野猪兽或步兵出色）。

经过调整的食物数量创造了每个单位的价值，并鼓励玩家不要退缩：当玩家创造了一个等于200个食物的军队时，他便成为一个坚不可摧的敌人，并且不管那时候的他处于哪个层面。并且即使敌人能够基于非常强大的单位创造出150个食物也不意味着他们就有机会获胜。

这一系统的主要优势在于较低层的单位将在整个游戏比赛中保持相关性，而遭遇战不再是最佳单位的技术赛，而是石头剪刀布般的闪电战。玩家需要打开选择并保存能力将注意力转向如何更好地打败敌人。

例如攻城坦克便是对抗地面单位的一种有力威胁，并且可以大量使用以保证胜利，但是他们仍然需要海军的支持以避免敌人成群的进攻或来自空中单位的袭击。

分层逻辑

《星际争霸》拥有“分层逻辑”，即为了绕着技术树的任何轴前行而采取的逻辑步骤。其中的一个关键工具便是分层资源的整合：Vespene Geyser（Vespere Gas）。

与之前包含了像“木头”等次要资源的游戏不同的是，Vespene Geysers要求投入大量的资源和时间去打开（Refinery）并拥有更有限的收入能力。这些局限性带有许多分支，但从核心看来，它是容许分层逻辑概念的。

要求只创建矿产的单位将变成最容易获得的层面（第一层），而任何要求创建汽油或拥有有限的汽油成本的单位将成为更重要的投资（第二层）。

同样地，进一步的汽油投资也将把单位带到技术树的更高层面上。

这些层面是玩家可以依赖的平衡工具：他们知道在单位Y进入游戏的时候单位X是不会出现的，因为为了获得必要的汽油投资必须遵循这样的逻辑步骤。

此外，它能够确保玩家可以优化资源收集并制定策略去利用这些元素：比起新手，有所准备的玩家总是能够更有效地进入第二层，并经常能在适当的时间获得决定性优势。

知道“何时”创建一所炼油产以及需要创建多少所炼油产成为了精通分层逻辑的关键。每个派别复杂的技术树能够创造许多排列，而敏锐的观察者能够在创建炼油产的时候告诉玩家策略或者从矿产转向汽油的单位数。

尽管之前的游戏有时候会出现强制层（游戏邦注：例如在《魔兽争霸2》中升级市政厅），但是分层逻辑方法其实是更有组织性且能够创造出更多可能。伴随着一些真正的单位食物，这能够提高给玩家一些机会并让他们在是否进化或使用较低层战术方面自由做出选择。

Battle.net

与之前游戏不同的是，《星际争霸》是通过Battle.net（暴雪的一个在线游戏平台）而发行的。它允许使用梯子等多人游戏“亚策略”功能（记录每个玩家获胜/失败等等的分数）。

这同样也是组合8个玩家一起游戏且提供各种游戏模式的有效平台（包括一些定制的情节）。

现在的玩家可以不用等待而与7名来自网上的随机陌生人（或朋友）展开对峙。网上总是会有人在玩《星际争霸》，所以玩家不用再与朋友协调时间了。

这大大推动看玩家与陌生人对抗或游戏的机会。玩家将不用再专注于少量来自当地且能够与自己进行对抗的人了。从本质上来看，这将以惊人的速度创造出更多策略，然后转变那些所谓的“亚策略”（即因为特定策略在大部分人之间的流行而使其成为主导型策略）。

例如从游戏机制标准来看，在坡道附近创造供应站去限制访问并不是一种“有效的移动”，反而在一些玩家遵循了4，5或6个匆忙的战术后，它将变成一种无价值的方法。同样地，黑暗圣堂武士也是一种基于环境的单位，不过他们将变得更加强大去对抗来自神族玩家的射击。缺乏伴随着Battle.net的存在而出现的亚对策，所有的这些内容都会遭到质疑，但是在全局中心的背景下，玩家将更有可能面对同样的策略并计划打败它们而不是优化自己的“一般”策略。

平衡和执行

在《星际争霸》中有些不可否认的“新”内容。独特的品牌，不对称的设计和分层逻辑都证实了这点。但是《星际争霸》的亮点主要是来自其突出的平衡性。伴随着非对称设计出现了平衡单位的任务：在提供不同选择的同时该如何确保比赛的“平衡”呢？

以前从未有任何RTS如此强调补丁。通常情况下补丁的发行都是为了应对亚对策中的新型策略，并确保始终推进技能游戏。但是硬核发行本身就已经是件难事了。

玩家社区将帮助塑造这一平衡，并寻找各种方法去打破它（游戏背后的逆向工程计算）。最后，尽管《星际争霸》还不是很完美，但它却已经非常接近一款真正平衡的游戏，并且在平衡方面玩家拥有很大的权利，所以游戏将不能滥用任何主导优势：存在能够对抗一切的内容，你只需要获取足够的经验去找出它便可。

结果便是，《星际争霸》成为另一个关于执行的突出例子。我认为它之所以如此受欢迎主要是它比之前任何RTS更接近象棋（可以说是象棋的不对称版本）。

与大多数之前游戏不同的是，《星际争霸》是基于非常确定的方式去处理破坏，确保每个结果都是可知的，并将隐藏信息置于shroud中。这便大大缩小的投机性并强调了最小化/最大化的价值。

高潮

接下来几年将带给我们许多高质量的游戏和让人兴奋的游戏体验。

通常情况下我们很难真正区分《星际争霸1》和《星际争霸2》，《沙丘2000》和《Emperor Dune》，甚至是《帝国时代》以及之后的系列游戏。尽管这些游戏的品牌，视觉效果和感觉都是不同的，但是从机制上来看它们却都是相似的。

的确，《星际争霸2》引进了Xel’naga塔，删除了战争迷雾（只保留了shroud），但从整体上看它与之前的游戏并无区别。

的确，《Emperpr Dune》引进了全新的单位，使每个派别变得更加不对称，但从核心看来它仍然是《沙丘2》。

尽管作为这类型中最出色的游戏之一，《帝国时代2》并没有真正可以拿得出手的东西。它只是拥有更多资源，如Vespene Gas，能够影响玩家如何保护它们。

尽管游戏平衡将不断发展，但是RTS模式冰不会与惯例内容具有太多出入。可以说在某种程度上这类型游戏开始趋于过时。

今天仍然是RTS的第二纪元。像《星际争霸2》这样成功的游戏只不过是优秀的“第二纪元”RTS游戏，但它们的确表现得很好。只要它们的技术树允许，它们便能够留在较低“层”，并想出一些强大的主导策略，然后再次活跃起来，因为它们会变得越来越好。

敏锐的观察者可能会认为我故意漏掉一些深刻的例子。到目前为止我一直假设所有开发工作室都专注于“多人游戏的竞赛”，而未曾尝试着将不同核心机制带到游戏中。

虽然我们无法验证真相，但这却帮助我能够将这些游戏与“其它”游戏划分开来，而这也是我将在之后讨论的内容。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Retro Mortis: RTS (Part 3) – Forged in Steel…

By Michel Mony

Greetings,

Disclaimer: When I started Part 3, I was hoping to tie the knot with RTS right here, but I already knew there would be too much to add and that a Part 4 would be required. Instead of cutting corners, I’ve decided to stick with the highlights and leave “everything else” for future parts. Sorry if you thought you’d be done with me by now!

Second Age

There are many ways to classify RTS history. For the sake of this article, we’ll assume that by “second age”, we refer to games that were released several months after Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. These were developed with sufficient observation of the multiplayer interactions that were first showcased in Warcraft, and come with a (perhaps naive) understanding of how multiplayer has affected the RTS as a genre.

In many ways, changing the focus of the RTS genre from that of a conventional single player experience to a competitive e-sport started when players had a chance to play games against one another, and how game developers reflected upon this experience. It shaped and defined new visions and new objectives for the developers, and was the underlying metric against which most decisions to come would be matched.

We’ve already observed that Dune II: The Building of a Dynasty was quite a strong precursor that spawned an entire genre, and it was so meaty there was little a single player game could hope to further achieve. Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was built as both a testament to Dune II (revered by all of the development team if Patrick Wyatt is to be believed) and as an attempt to stretch the possibilites of this game to the multiplayer scene, without fore-knowledge of just how much untapped potential there was along that thread.

Building upon the Multiplayer experience and shifting production focus made sense: On the one hand, there didn’t seem to be that much that could be added/changed to the then-winning formula of the RTS, and multiplayer had already proved it could garner its own share of the sales pot as a retail box feature.

It wasn’t a lack of inspiration, but an actual opportunity that helped crystallize the RTS as it was. Developers did not seek to be inventive in how the RTS mechanics worked because there was simply too much work to be done to fully bring multiplayer to the next step: making it a sport (or Chess 2.0).

Warcraft II

Warcraft II is a very interesting installment of the RTS genre. Unlike all previous games, it was built with about 1 year of experience observing players interacting with the first multiplayer RTS. Blizzard’s bet clearly paid off by then: competition had brought a whole new dimension to the RTS genre. They were probably the ones with the best insight into how multiplayer had modified the RTS scene and quickly capitalized on their advantage by launching a title that was clearly a defining moment in the RTS history.

It is worth to mention that Command & Conquer was released earlier and received much praise for its multiplayer support, and storyline implementation (actual movies showcasing then-Westwood employees). To justify my choice of moving forward with Warcraft II, I’ll only quote this:

” By all accounts, Command & Conquer (C&C) was an immediate and unmitigated success when it was released in late 1995. It spawned one of the most lucrative series in videogame history, and its title has become synonymous with real-time strategy (RTS). Yet, the basis of the game was not original. Dune II, from the same developer, had previously established the RTS genre, and C&C was almost identical in many respects. What made C&C such a sensation was its refinement of Dune II’s gameplay ideas with the addition of several key innovations, which set the standard for all games of the genre to come. Internet play and varied styles of play between the different armies in the game were some of the important advances that are now fundamental to RTS. Furthermore, C&C’s flaws clearly showed some areas in which improvement was possible.”

Pacing

With people setting up for multiplayer sessions, it soon became apparent that Warcraft: Orcs and Humans took too much time off people’s phone lines. Blizzard felt they had a chance to increase popularity of the genre by making the game faster (allowing more players to play, and more games to actually be completed).

As a result, they’ve made the game faster in many ways, most notably through unit movement (which had both an effect on economy and combat).

The expected outcome was to make games shorter and insure people could play more often, but there were also a few byproducts that were introduced by this new “pacing”:

Because the game was faster, player mastery over the input became critical once more. The game slowly shifted away from a tactical game (such as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans) and entered the realm of the dreaded APM (Actions per minute). Here, the problem was not necessarily UX (such as in Dune II), as the game effectively provided tools developed during Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (multi-selection, command hotkeys, control groups), but the effect was similar: an average player would feel there was too much to do and would need to prioritize the most meaningful micro-management-intensive actions at any given time.

Another byproduct of the increased pacing were the strategic implications that came along. Since units still took a fair bit of time to be created, but units moved faster, it meant that the ratio of time to create a unit vs moving it somewhere on the map increased. In essence, it diminished the defender’s advantage significantly: units would take the same time to be created, but it wouldn’t take as long as before to bring these units as reinforcements, insuring the defender wouldn’t benefit as much from having a “higher unit count” when defending his base.

As the defender’s advantage was diminished, turtling became much less potent, and the game really became about projecting one’s force across the map and control it as early as possible (both to see enemy incursions before they occured, and to control resources).

These considerable changes to pacing, though they may not appear to be much, are one of the key elements that would stick in future installments and one of the last cornerstones of a “Blizzard-style RTS”. All future Blizzard RTS followed in Warcraft II’s wake (Starcraft I & II, Warcraft III) along with several other competitive RTS.

Streamlined

In Warcraft 2, time is streamlined. Actions are meant to be fast-paced, putting more emphasis on player execution than strategy. It puts the player under rush and leads the player with the most nerves to victory.

Units are more expandable, and the unit cap has been raised, shifting focus to constant streams of military production.
Economic upgrades also reduce the need for peasants by a bit, further focusing on military production.
To accommodate this slight shift, the multi-selection tool is extended to 9 units to improve maneuverability, and single-click actions (right clicking) allows for quick orders.

The concept of Roads is removed from the game altogether, removing building placement restrictions. With the inclusion of watch-towers, which are defensive buildings, it is now possible to guard any specific position on the map with extra support. Even offensively when needed.

To support “free-building”, it is now possible to erect town halls and some proxy-buildings that allow resource gathering, reducing/annihilating the need for supply lines at a very cheap price. Concentration of forces becomes more prevalent as a result.

Although most of these changes appear simple, they change the game’s nature: Where Warcraft: Orcs and Humans was all about trying to protect long supply lines of peasants cutting distant forests or fetching gold from remote gold mines, the game now starts to look more like “expansions” (small bases) with economical or military focus. It teaches the player that this is the way to play the game now, and it looks nothing like the previous game.

Fog of War 2.0: The “Shroud” regrows…

Yet, there are a few innovations in Warcraft II. One of the most important is the Shroud. Up to this point, most games dealing with “fog of war” only gave the impression of the unknown. The map was covered in darkness, but as soon as a unit revealed a portion of the map, it would remain visible forever.

The original fog of war was more about discovering the “landscape” and much less so keeping tabs on enemy movement.

The Shroud, or fog of war 2.0, actually regrows when there are no units with line of sight to a portion of the map. The landscape itself remains, as this is fairly static, but the knowledge of enemy troops and buildings becomes vague: units are no longer shown, and buildings only reveal the last known status of a given area (disregarding any changes that may have been operated later).

This is an ideal inclusion for a multiplayer game as it forces players to spread their forces to have the information they need. They are likely to spy on their enemies to know what’s coming their way, and it makes it that much better. It is such a good system in fact that it will remain largely unchanged until Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (but more on that later).

One too many resources? – The Black Gold Case

Since the dawn of time… well not really, but since Warcraft: Orcs and Humans, the idea of more resources had been considered. Dune II had only 1: spice melange. Warcraft: Orcs and Humans had 2, but actually had 3 during development (the third one being rocks I believe).
The development team behind Warcraft II chose to move forward with the idea of a third resource, one that would unlock another facet of the game. Their choice was to have an “advanced” resource only available in the mid to late-game that would provide access to more advanced units (naval) and unit upgrades (some of which affect non-naval units).

Unlike Age of Empires, in order to erect a fleet, a player would need to have control over water before being able to claim their right to it, and tentatively, the first player to dominate the seas could deny access to his opponent and perform interdiction missions to raid its borders. The only means to escape this would be to utilize air units.

This was a tricky move given that oil was not necessarily employed to build more powerful units, but rather, to unlock a different layer of the terrain which was, in several maps, optional. This rendered oil somewhat superfluous. Its legacy however, is that it inspired the concept of a resource that would only become available with some form of investment, and would be helpful for more advance units. Though this can arguably said of lumbers (used to build archers) there was no real form of investment, and it was already necessary for building construction. This concept would later become used in other games such as Starcraft (Vespene Gas).

The Z Axis! – Air units

Air units really made their debut in Warcraft II. They allowed to trade high amounts of resources to take advantage of free-movement. This allowed both access to very efficient scouting units (Zeppelins) and all-terrain capable strike units (dragons, gryphons).

The air units also helped counter-balance the naval units’ economic issue (can’t build some if you can’t control the sea first), but they also allowed to bypass terrain collisions and strike from unexpected angles, fast, and relatively unscathed when desired. This greatly diminished the value of ground units (though they were still stronger on average in 1v1 encounters) and improved the value of mixed arms tactics.

Air units have since been included in many RTS games (specifically those that value mixed arms tactics over maneuverability).

Map Editor

One of the key elements bundled along with Warcraft II was the Level Editor: a simple yet very efficient means to create additionnal levels for the game (playable in multiplayer) which would make the game last much longer. In a Blizzard-style RTS, the level-editor became de-facto (Starctaft, Warcraft III and Starcraft II replicated this) often leading to very popular maps that would evolve into spinoff games/genres (DOTA/LOL or the MOBA genre is often said to be born from a Warcraft III mod).

Starcraft

Starcraft is a personal favorite, so I’ll do my best and try to remain grounded. It was a great, acclaimed game when it was released, and to this day, it spawned the only Blizzard RTS series that is still active (Warcraft’s last installment was Warcraft III, and Blizzard has demonstrated no interest in pursuing the series, finding its RPG elements much more interesting to exploit).

Asymmetry

Starcraft’s obvious legacy is pure assymetry. Unlike previous installments of the RTS genre that used a set of similar units or at least economic precepts, Starcraft breaks several rules to bring alive 3 radically different factions (which must’ve been a nightmare to try and balance, as would attest all of the patches it has endured).

This metamorphosis is so deeply encroached in the design that even the “builder” or “economic” units vary greatly.

For example, while the Terran SCV (builder) is fairly mainstream (stays at construction site for the duration of the construction, and then resumes its duties), the Protoss Probe can start the construction of buildings and immediately leave while the Zerg’s Drone actually needs to be sacrificed in the process to generate a living building.

Furthermore, each faction has placement limitations that are unique to them (Terrans can build anywhere, Protoss need to setup a power network of Pylons, and Zergs must extend their creep).

Their Unit capacity is also determined by different means. The Terrans must build a structure that is specifically used to improve their food count, whereas the Protoss have bundled this ability together with their Pylon (already used for placement limitations) and the Zerg have simply tasked one of their units (the Overlord) with production the necessary sustainment for their army.

Lastly, units from each faction differ also in how they handle damage:

The Terrans take damage, and beyond a certain threshold, their structures will start to burn. They can repair damage with their builder unit but only for structures and vehicles, and they have a dedicated medic unit to heal wounds of their organic units.

The Protoss have shields which regenerate very quickly (particularly useful between encounters), but once their life is damaged, they can’t heal it back to full.

The Zergs are all Organic units and have a persistent (although slow) regeneration rate which allows them to run interference and perform hit-and-run tactics more efficiently.

Not only do they not share any unit, but all of their units are functionally different:

The basic Terran unit is actually a ranged unit (the Marine) whereas the Protoss field a formidable melee unit (the Zealot) and yet the Zergs resort to quantity (2 Zerglings in the same egg).

Their tech-tree is altogether different, and “Tiers” are experienced through different means:

The Terrans can attach specific add-ons to their buildings (comsat, machine shop, etc.) to unlock specific upgrades and units.

The Protoss rely strongly upon building inter-dependancy (need X to build Y).

The Zergs must upgrade their Hive to higher levels in order to unlock further buildings.

Overall, each faction feels nothing alike, and it is very hard for a player that has experience with a single faction to know what to expect from his opponents. It emphasizes play experience and planning over tactics but is still largely thrumped by APM…

Food Cost

A small case can be made about “food cost”. Though each faction deals with it differently, the system itself actually changed across the board. Unlike previous installments, each unit has a unique food cost. A Zealot, for example, is worth 2 food, whereas a Marine is worth only 1, and Zerglings are worth 0.5.

Though this may appear as a small change, it changes the game by a wide margin. The problem with earlier titles is that it was actually preferable to save on resources and max the food count with higher tier units (just ogres or knights in Warcraft II, for example, was strictly better than just grunts or footmen).

An adjusted food count changes that by making each unit worth exactly what it should be, and this encourages players not to hold back: when a player fields a 200 food count army he is a formidable opponent, regardless of what tier they are in. And just because his opponent can field 150 food with strictly superior units doesn’t mean he has any chance to win the encounter.

The main advantage of this system is that lower-tier units remain relevant throughout the game match, and the encounter feels less like a tech-race to the best unit and more like a game of blitz rock-paper-scissor. Players need to open up their options and retain an ability to shift production focus at a moment’s notice to better counter their enemies.

Siege tanks, for example, are a formidable threat against ground units and can be fielded in numbers to secure a win, but they still need the support of marines to prevent zergling swarms from rushing in, or air units from dispatching them.

No unit thrumps it all.

Tiered Logic

Starcraft has a “Tiered Logic” where there are logical steps to take in order to progress along any axis of the tech tree. One of its key tools is the inclusion of a tiered resource: The Vespene Geyser (Vespere Gas).

Unlike previous installements that included secondary resources such as “Wood”, the Vespene Geysers require a hefty investment in resource and time to unlock (Refinery) and have a much more limited income (maxed output with 3 worker units) capacity. The ramifications of these limitations are numerous, but at its core, it permits (and dictates) the concept of a Tiered Logic.

Units that require only minerals to build (and are built from buildings that require only minerals) then obviously become the most readily available (tier 1) and any unit that requires a single building investent of Gas or has a limited Gas cost itself becomes a slightly more important investment (tier 2).

Likewise, further investments of Gas (either through multiple buildings, or higher gas cost) relegate units to further tiers along the tree.

These tiers are a balancing tool that players can learn to rely on: they know, for a fact, that unit X cannot appear before Y units of time into the game, simply because of the logical steps that need to be taken towards getting the necessary gas investment to get there.

Furthermore, it ensures that player can strategize and optimize their resource collection to take advantage of this: a well-prepared player can shift to tier 2 units much more efficiently than a rookie, and can oftentimes claim a decisive advantage for doing so at the right time.

Knowing “when” to build a refinery, and how many to build becomes key to mastering that tiered logic. The elaborate tech tree of each faction creates a large number of permutations and an acute observer may be able to tell a player’s strategy just by the timing of refineries being built, or the amount of units shifting from minerals to gas.

While previous installments sometimes had forced tiers (upgrading the townhall in Warcraft II for example) the tiered logic approach is much more organic and opens up more possibilities. Coupled with actual unit food, this gives players several opportunities and freedom of choice on whether to evolve at all or use of the lower-tier tactics (bio-ball for example).

Battle.net

Starcraft, unlike its predecessors, was released through Battle.net, Blizzard’s online gaming platform. It allowed several multiplayer “metagame” features such as ladders (which would keep scores of win/losses/draws for individual players).

It was also a very efficient platform to match-up 8 players together and provided a number of game modes (including custom scenario).

From simply joining up with a friend through dialup, players could now jump into the fray and faceoff with up to 7 random strangers (or friends) from the internet without having to wait. There was always someone online to play against and playing Starcraft no longer required tuning one’s agenda with friends’.

This contributed to the then rising phenomenon of playing against or with strangers. This also confronted more players to the “online norm” as far as playing skill was concerned, instead of focusing on small pockets of players that would play locally against one another. In essence, this contributed to strategies emerging at an alarming rate, then shifting what many would refer to as the “metagame” (strategies that tend to be dominant solely because certain strategies are in vogue amongst the large populace).

For example, building a supply depot close by a ramp to limit access was not necessarily considered a “good move” by gameplay mechanics’ standards, but after a lot of players followed the 4, 5 or 6 pool rush tactics, it became an invaluable means of breaking early zerging rushes. Likewise, dark templars are a very circumstancial unit, but they became much more potent against volley of protoss players that would play “4 Gate Goon”. Devoid of the metagame that came along with Battle.net’s existence, all of these are doubtful approaches, but in the context of a globalized gaming hub, players were much more likely to face similar strategies reccurently and devise plans to defeat them rather than optimize their “general” strategy.

Balance & Execution

There’s an undeniable portion of “new” in Stacraft. The unique brand, assymetrical design and tiered logic prove this. But Starcraft shines mostly by its brilliant balance.
Coming along assymetrical design came the arduous task of unit balancing: How could matches be kept “balanced” all the while offering drastically different options?

Never before had an RTS put so much emphasis on its Patches. Frequently, patches would be released to counter emerging strategies in the metagame, and insure that skillful play was always encouraged. But the core release itself was already quite a piece of work.

The player community helped shape this balance, always seeking ways to break it (reverse-engineering the exact calculations behind the game). In the end, though Starcraft remains imperfect, it is very close to an evenly matched game, and player input has so much power on that balance that it is almost impossible to abuse dominant strategies: there’s a counter to everything, you just need to have sufficient experience to know what it is.

As a result, Starcraft is another shining example of execution. I would even argue that its popularity stemmed from the mere fact it was closer to chess than any other RTS before its time (although, arguably, an asymmetric version of chess such as Tafl).

Unlike most predecessors, Starcraft handles damage in a very deterministic way, making each outcome known, and limiting hidden information to the fog of war / shroud. This minimizes the amount of gambling and emphasizes the value of min/maxing.

One needs only venture at TeamLiquid to notice how much thought has been put towards trying to find the best counter to everything. Determining when to get these precious weapon upgrades, for example, can be quantified almost easily!

Culmination

The following years would bring us many quality games, and exciting experiences.

For the most part, however, it is hard to determine what trully distinguishes Starcraft I from Starcraft II, Dune 2000 from Emperor Dune, or even Ages of Empire from most of the aforementionned games. Though the branding, visual quality and feel of these games would feel drastically different, they would remain mechanically the same.

It is true that Stacraft 2 introduced Xel’naga towers, removed fog of war (in multiplayer only: keeping only the “shroud” as most pro players knew the maps by heart anyway) but overall, it is still the same game.

It is true that Emperor Dune introduced new units, making each faction more asymmetrical, but it was still Dune 2(000) at its core.

Even Age of Empires II did not bring much to the table despite being one of the most well-executed games in the genre. It had more resources, which, much like Vespene Gas, affected how players would go about securing them.

Though game balancing kept evolving, the mold of what an RTS was supposed to be appeared to be crystallized in such a way that very few risked venturing away from the conventions. To a degree, the genre became stale.

The Second Age of RTS is still present to this day. Successful titles such as Starcraft II are nothing more than well-executed “second age” RTS games, but they do it well. As their tech tree would allow, they’ve chosen to remain at a lower “tier” but came up with fierce strategies to dominate, and are alive to this day simply because they keep getting better.

An acute observer might rightfully point out that I’m – intentionally – leaving several poignant examples aside. Up to this point, I’ve assumed that all development studios have focused exclusively on the “race for multiplayer”, never attempting to introduce different core mechanics to the game.

This couldn’t be further from the truth, but it helped me separate these games that do fit the mold from the “others”, which I’ll discuss in Part 4. If you’re into that sort of thing… stay tuned!(source:gamedev)