Propbuddha

While listening to the bit regarding how Lords Managements are replacing RTSs, I always considered Massive Entertainment's "World in Conflict" (they also did Ground Control) to be the best example of where RTSs could go to refresh the genre. While there was nothing revolutionary, the game had a lot of great features: - Drop in play that worked - Assymetric classes that were available to both teams - A unit buying system that was not directly tied to if you were already winning or resources (you get points faster the less points you had on the board). - Clan support including clan match servers and clan leaderboards - Small unit counts (accessible) - A veneer of tactical play (flanking, units could fire outside of their own LOS if the had scouting, cover) for depth - Teams could share TAs (a.k.a super power points) for bigger effects or to help each other out. - Quick matches that were full of action - A "tug of war" victory system that allowed for spectacular comebacks - A great website loaded with stats and information - The right ratio of damage/firing range/unit speed which never feels right in Starcraft-style RTSs - Replays, spectator mode and even an awesome broadcast tool To me this seemed like a great direction for RTSs and seems like an excellent framework for games that wanted to capture the appeal of Lords Managements (easy to pickup, short games), but not copy the DOTA (i.e. "lanes", creeps, fantasy themes, controlling one hero, etc.). Unfortunately, the series died after the studio got shuffled between publishers. "End of Nations" seemed to be going in that direction but a combination of a bad developer (Petroglyph, which hasn't done anything interesting since the Star Wars RTS), free to play and Lords Managementization ruined the game.

@ Kordanor What you describe above is flexible, but it's also a bit cheesy. In the old X-COM (and many TBS tactics games) your soldiers inch forward a "square" at a time until they see something, then you change your plan and do something different based on information you didn't know when you started moving. It really ruins the fog of war, in my opinion, because there is less risk. In this system, you have less discrete actions as a resource on your turn and less opportunity to turn on a dime, making your decisions are more important. Of course, it's all about taste and you definitely give up fine control. You do not need to tab through your soldiers to see who can move. There are icons over each character telling you how many actions are left ( the pennants under the HP pips in this photo -> http://www.gameinformer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-ImageFileViewer/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles-00-00-36-50-71-Attached+Files/7801.xcom_2D00_enemy_2D00_unknown_2D00_pc_2D00_screenshots_2D00_6.jpg_2D00_610x0.jpg ).

I don't see this as a negative. In any game where terrain matters (board or computer), the game flows around the valuable parts of the map. High ground and solid full cover points are important and add extra depth as opposed to who gets the first kills in. I didn't get the sense that the map mattered that much in the original beyond having providing places to hide the aliens. In the original (and some prototypes, as Jake pointed out) you could just blow holes through walls with most weapons which would devalue the cover in this game.

Thank you for doing this cast, was enjoyable. Question for Bruce... During the cast, you seem to imply that the addition of the cover system was a negative for you. You used an example where putting troops in an open field was not a viable option. Can you explain where you were going with that a bit more? Are you suggesting that the game over-rewards being in cover, that you want to see more open maps or something else? Thanks in advance. @Kordanor - you can select your troops with left mouse clicks... I've seen the AI do some sensible things in some of the preview videos (Retreat from flanked position, hunker down in a defensive position, but then move up to support a group of melee troops). I've haven't seen it do anything I'd consider totally stupid (like rushing a unit out in the open) or rely on cheap tricks to win (like in the original). Time will tell of course, but the AI looks promising.