So in all this talk about automating (some) micro, nobody's brought up the alternate spectre of automating (some) macro?
So the strategic and interesting part is *only* in the micro, eh? What about look at reducing the attention required for the
other half of the game, freeing you up to do more micro?
Eh, anyway...
This whole argument is silly. We're so trapped in the existing framework of base-building RTS games that was laid down by
Warcraft I Dune II, that all we can think of is the same old modifications. Like Buge's joke about the dude with the slider knobs, only applied to a game genre as a whole.
To me, the worst failure in modern RTS is the lack of significant advancement in AI. Why are macro and micro as we know it both so important? Because you, as a commander have no subordinates you can trust at all. You must issue all commands from a platoon level on up to the highest levels. If you let the computer make any decisions on your behalf, it's going to make decisions so retarded that you might as well sit and just punch yourself in the head instead of actually playing. When you guys talk about automating this or that, you're basically talking about removing some decisions to make the remaining dull decisions easier. But with better AI, you could increase the quality of decisions a person might have to make (and hopefully the fun and challenge of the game).
Think about the way real combat works from the perspective of a commander. Information is hard to come by - harder than it is in most RTSes. People (individuals or groups) report back to you giving you status reports (unless they don't report back, due to enemy action) and you must rely on this information, even though it may not always be correct. Based on this often-fragmented or incomplete information, you must make educated guesses as to the best possible disposition of your forces (at lower levels of command this includes individual orders, at higher levels of command, individual orders to subcommanders is important, but distribution of materiel and manpower also comes into play).
I don't know about you guys, but while a modern RTS does include a fair number of opportunities to do the above, at their heart, they are still about how many computations you can do per second, whether it's about perfecting a build order or memorizing a neat micro maneuver. AI rarely comes into it because individual units (theirs OR yours) never adapt to your strategy, so endless practice at being quick on the draw takes the place of real adpative thinking. Or rather, RTSes still play more like video games than simulations.
Maps are important too. The lack of advancement in dynamic map generation means a player only has to deal with a narrow set of slight variations on a fairly consistent theme, rather than being forced to adapt to a very wide variety of situations and terrain (would be a great way to disrupt "perfect" build orders). In fact most maps don't even offer environmental differences or things as simple as weather. They're just cute re-skins of the same utterly vanilla sandbox.
Anyway, as I said earlier, I don't really have a beef with Starcraft. Blizzard has decided their innovating days are over and that's fine - sometimes the smartest realization you can make is to understand that you're Motorhead or whoever and just play Ace of Spades every concert without trying to get fancy or complain that you don't want to play the fans' favourite song. Starcraft has decided to be a re-run of a game made fifteen years ago, but if that's all people want and that's what'll sell best, that's a decision that makes sense from Blizzards point of view. Blizzard is good at what they do, so maybe I'll play it and have some fun. But I'll still dream of a truly progressive RTS.
Sour grapes.
