I think the first example of asymmetric design I found was Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. The Alliance and Horde are aesthetically different but statistically identical- the Dragon and Gryphon Rider have the same attacks, the grunt and footman have the same stats and the ogre is exactly the same as the knight, but different looking. Where it differs is in the spells each player gets- the Ogre-Mage gets three spells that allow for an aggressive playstyle- Bloodlust makes your allies do more damage, Eye of Kilrogg lets you scout defenses to know where to attack, and Runes lets you place super-damaging runes that don't know the difference between your units and theirs and allows you to pretty much bottleneck enemies making them easier to kill. Conversely, the Paladin lends itself mostly to more defensive- it gets the helpful Heal spell, can destroy the pesky undead and make the odds more even, and use Holy Vision to see where the enemy is so they know how long they'll have to defend themselves. The other identical units- the Mage and the Death Knight- also have this in varying degrees, though some of them are identical. Their base attacks (Lightening and Touch of Darkness respectively) both ignore armor; their area of effect spells are equally devastating to buildings and units (Blizzard and Death and Decay, respectively). Where they differ is every other spell, even ones that are roughly equivalent- Mages get Invisibility (a unit protection spell that turns them.. well.. invisible to enemies) and Death Knights get Unholy Armor (Protective spell that sacrifices health for a temporary boost in armor); Mages get Fireball (rolling fireball that travels in a straight line) and Death Knights get Whirlwind (like fireball, but slow and moves randomly); Mages get Slow (slows unit movement as well as attack speed) and Death Knights get exactly the opposite spell, Haste (speeds unit movement and attack speed); and finally the spells that have no equivalent Mages have the spell Polymorph (my personal favorite- makes enemy units helpless critter units that cant attack but dont automatically die), and Death knights have Death Coil that kills enemies in a wide area and can be used to heal the death knight by sapping and draining the health from Critters and even your own units. Symmetric AND asymmetric.
WarCraft 2 was released in December 1995, while Command & Conquer(: Tiberian Dawn) was released in August of the same year. Nod and GDI fielded units that were either the same like the minigunner, different units for the same niche e.g. Nod's artillery and the MRLS of the GDI, or units that were conceptionally only for either faction such as Nod's Stealth Tank or the GDI's Commando.
2:17 i strongly dissagree with this point. Denying your enemy resources would be the reason for map control. And the necrons aren't that confusing. Capturing those points makes them train units/tech faster. I think the sisters of battle or the dark eldar would have fit your point better
Seems strange to say that Supreme Commander does not have asymmetric factions. Other than all units being robots, each of the four factions have different units, strengths, and weaknesses. Cybrans cater to a more raidy / hit-and-run playstyle. UEF are more brute force and can turn into the ultimate turtles in late-game, etc.
Sure there's some very minor changes between the factions, but If you compare the units, the production, the economies to each other you will see they are like 95% the same. You don't micro any of the tanks differently, you don't micro artillery or planes any differently. You don't collect resources or build units in different ways. Compare the level of asymmetry between Supreme Commander to StarCraft, Company of Heroes or Command and Conquer.
+GeneralsGentlemen In your video, you yourself made the point that it'd be a mistake to differentiate economy management between factions. In regards to unit micro, there's plenty of differences. Aeon tanks will literally lose 2:1 vs any other faction's tanks. To make up for this, they have higher range and need to kite to win. Cybran artillery stun units which no other faction does. Seraphim artillery hover which makes them insane on maps with water. If there was no asymmetry, then Cybran wouldn't be completely dominating the meta right now in high level play. Literally everyone and their mother is just playing Cybran because they are so much better. This is probably going to be fixed with the next balance patch though. I can see why one would think the factions are symmetrical, but the differences are there and massive for people who play the game :P Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh, typing on mobile here so just trying to get my point across with fewer words!
Fair enough, I suppose it was a bit of an oversight to say Supreme Commander has "Mirrored factions." which is seems to be at face value. It's still less asymmetric than most RTS however.
@@skifisk For one not every unit has an eauivalent in all factions, and for another, units are designed to fill real tactical roles, with no overlap. A faction lacking a unit, is a faction lacking a possible tactical capability. You can say starcraft doesnt have mirrored units, but Corruptors, phoenixes and vikings are literally mirrored. So is Ultralisk Colossus Siege Tank. Or Marine Stalker Hydralisk. These are clearly defined tactical roles, essential capabilities, that all factions must posess, if they are to be playable at all.
Love this series, thanks Machine. Any fan of 'strategy'/tactics in games should watch. The strategy game community should rally around the "make RTS great again" rhetoric - it's such a wide community that has many styles of game that casual players might like if they knew about them. And if there is a player base, the publishers will notice (and hopefully make good games).
Company of Heroes 2 definitely has asymmetric map design. Which would be a good thing if the factions didn't have as many flaws and missing tools as they do.
A few thoughts- -the feelings of horror and rts are about control. You need the players to have control for the game to be fun, but horror relies on feeling helpless. -for a pvp game, it would be hard to swap between these feelings quickly, so events need to be shocking. There should be powerful abilities and a focus on ambushing. -Even if the factions are Humans and (Scary Things), I would still try to make it scary for both sides. Humans are dangerous and unpredictable! -a morale system could replace some functions of health: instead of trading a lot of attacks, you chip away at their sanity, making them vulnerable to a sudden end. This serves the goal of shocking the player. -make the scale small, so each death feels more impactful. I hope that helps, and best of luck with your game!
focus on creative use of fog of war and information denial as well as if it's PvE just scary powerful units that can come out of nowhere EG deepstriking and tunneling. It's scary in an rts to not know what you're opponent is gonna do because this increases the chance of all our units getting totally stomped on.
0:00 Company of Heroes 2 0:24 World in Conflict 0:34 C&C Generals 0:59 C&C Tiberium Wars (I think, but its definitely a tiberium game that isnt Tiberiuan Sun or Tiberian Twilight) 2:12 Dawn of War Dark Crusade (or Soul Storm) 3:21 Age of Empires (*I think*) 6:10 Dawn of War 2 6:56 Red Alert 3
How about an rts-basebuilding-game where you actually have to decide what the buildings consist of? Presets are available of course, but you could actually customize your own presets. Actual build plans, while not so complicated. Many wouldn't like that, I bet :) Few might, but not many.
Only had minimal experience with ROTR, but it feels like the factions in the mod shift their balance relative to each other as the game progresses, something you said would be better avoided, and I must agree. GLA and Russia seem like polar opposites in this regard. GLA is super strong earlygame but lose their edge as the game progresses, where Russia is the other way around. I find that when I play GLA against a Russian guy, I either stomp him to the ground right off the bat with him having no tools to stop me, or the game drags on for super long until I just GG out because GLA has excellent survivability but zero offensive power vs lategame Russia.
Seeing as CoH 2 is mostly used for bad examples, I fully agree with you, and I hope Relic take this into account when making DoW III, which undoubtedly will be so, I mean, cmon, at least one of their team members has to see this, right? Anyway, I still don't see what's bad about giving everyone everything needed for basic tools like the USF and UKF's mobile mortar teams and an MG by default for the OKW, forward retreat points and automatic repairs for the Eastern Front Armies, forward barracks like in CoH, etc... They'll still be very different to each other and play differently, take the British and their Infantry Section for example, they'll always be best used in defense more than offense like the other Armies' mainline infantry squads.
Nah... I love asymmetric design factions because I can say "I want to play this faction because only this faction can do X". For instance, my favorite Zero Hour general is Kassad, because I love tech hijacking overlords and sneaky stealth tunnels, and I don't like head-on engagements.
And for the same reason I would prefer the china Tank General because I like tanks. However the GLA Toxin general makes also a very compelling idea by expanding on the antrax application. However I would not call these assymetrical design, these are offshoot factions from one of the main factions that are at the core of that asymmetrical ideology. The offshoot factions are usually specializations in a certain area.
After watching your vids...I get the feeling that you don't like DoW...I think DoW is a great RTS compared to the rest....as you love Company of Heroes which uses the mechanics that was first introduced in DoW.
1:26, with respect mate, but this is bullshit. First and foremost, you seem to view it from a perspective that something as small as the mechanical SCV could never transform into a solid structure like a Barracks, yet that exact same logic goes out the window when it concerns an organic unit? I could equally debate a Drone would never possess the required organic material to morph into a Hatchery. If / When the game (lore) had a perfectly acceptible reason how an SCV could have transformed into a Barracks, you'd eat it like cake all the same. You're simply saying its strange now because it was already established an SCV doesn't work like that. Another example: If you'd take away any knowledge on Grey Goo, you'd also say that a Goo-cloud would never be able to ultimately become a Bastion or any of the destinct walker-style units because how would a cloud do so? But since we got a perfectly reasonable explanation of how the Goo works we know and believe its possible. And in a more general fashion: Whats your take on a game like Warzone 2100 then? With exception of the Nexus Link turret (tower) you as the player can effectively become any of the other faction designwise, just with a different teamcolor. Yet that game has done quite well for itself and even did/capitalized on some revolutionary concepts. Asymmetric design is popularized for sure, but (and luckily you also say this) not at all required. Its just far more used because a) game increase in technical fidelity so it allows it and b) most modern game aim to make very destinctively different races or factions. Note: with race I explicitly refer different species like human, alien, insectoid, robotic etc, and with faction I refer to different groups within a given race (GDI and Nod)
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnlxo79cAqY/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the first example of asymmetric design I found was Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. The Alliance and Horde are aesthetically different but statistically identical- the Dragon and Gryphon Rider have the same attacks, the grunt and footman have the same stats and the ogre is exactly the same as the knight, but different looking. Where it differs is in the spells each player gets- the Ogre-Mage gets three spells that allow for an aggressive playstyle- Bloodlust makes your allies do more damage, Eye of Kilrogg lets you scout defenses to know where to attack, and Runes lets you place super-damaging runes that don't know the difference between your units and theirs and allows you to pretty much bottleneck enemies making them easier to kill. Conversely, the Paladin lends itself mostly to more defensive- it gets the helpful Heal spell, can destroy the pesky undead and make the odds more even, and use Holy Vision to see where the enemy is so they know how long they'll have to defend themselves. The other identical units- the Mage and the Death Knight- also have this in varying degrees, though some of them are identical. Their base attacks (Lightening and Touch of Darkness respectively) both ignore armor; their area of effect spells are equally devastating to buildings and units (Blizzard and Death and Decay, respectively). Where they differ is every other spell, even ones that are roughly equivalent- Mages get Invisibility (a unit protection spell that turns them.. well.. invisible to enemies) and Death Knights get Unholy Armor (Protective spell that sacrifices health for a temporary boost in armor); Mages get Fireball (rolling fireball that travels in a straight line) and Death Knights get Whirlwind (like fireball, but slow and moves randomly); Mages get Slow (slows unit movement as well as attack speed) and Death Knights get exactly the opposite spell, Haste (speeds unit movement and attack speed); and finally the spells that have no equivalent Mages have the spell Polymorph (my personal favorite- makes enemy units helpless critter units that cant attack but dont automatically die), and Death knights have Death Coil that kills enemies in a wide area and can be used to heal the death knight by sapping and draining the health from Critters and even your own units. Symmetric AND asymmetric.
WarCraft 2 was released in December 1995, while Command & Conquer(: Tiberian Dawn) was released in August of the same year. Nod and GDI fielded units that were either the same like the minigunner, different units for the same niche e.g. Nod's artillery and the MRLS of the GDI, or units that were conceptionally only for either faction such as Nod's Stealth Tank or the GDI's Commando.
2:17 i strongly dissagree with this point. Denying your enemy resources would be the reason for map control. And the necrons aren't that confusing. Capturing those points makes them train units/tech faster.
I think the sisters of battle or the dark eldar would have fit your point better
Seems strange to say that Supreme Commander does not have asymmetric factions. Other than all units being robots, each of the four factions have different units, strengths, and weaknesses. Cybrans cater to a more raidy / hit-and-run playstyle. UEF are more brute force and can turn into the ultimate turtles in late-game, etc.
Sure there's some very minor changes between the factions, but If you compare the units, the production, the economies to each other you will see they are like 95% the same. You don't micro any of the tanks differently, you don't micro artillery or planes any differently. You don't collect resources or build units in different ways. Compare the level of asymmetry between Supreme Commander to StarCraft, Company of Heroes or Command and Conquer.
+GeneralsGentlemen In your video, you yourself made the point that it'd be a mistake to differentiate economy management between factions.
In regards to unit micro, there's plenty of differences. Aeon tanks will literally lose 2:1 vs any other faction's tanks. To make up for this, they have higher range and need to kite to win.
Cybran artillery stun units which no other faction does. Seraphim artillery hover which makes them insane on maps with water.
If there was no asymmetry, then Cybran wouldn't be completely dominating the meta right now in high level play. Literally everyone and their mother is just playing Cybran because they are so much better. This is probably going to be fixed with the next balance patch though.
I can see why one would think the factions are symmetrical, but the differences are there and massive for people who play the game :P
Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh, typing on mobile here so just trying to get my point across with fewer words!
Fair enough, I suppose it was a bit of an oversight to say Supreme Commander has "Mirrored factions." which is seems to be at face value. It's still less asymmetric than most RTS however.
Its just not possible to make starcraft or C&C asymmetric factions in a RTS as big and complex as Supreme Commander. Way too many variables.
@@skifisk For one not every unit has an eauivalent in all factions, and for another, units are designed to fill real tactical roles, with no overlap.
A faction lacking a unit, is a faction lacking a possible tactical capability.
You can say starcraft doesnt have mirrored units, but Corruptors, phoenixes and vikings are literally mirrored.
So is Ultralisk Colossus Siege Tank. Or Marine Stalker Hydralisk.
These are clearly defined tactical roles, essential capabilities, that all factions must posess, if they are to be playable at all.
Love this series, thanks Machine. Any fan of 'strategy'/tactics in games should watch. The strategy game community should rally around the "make RTS great again" rhetoric - it's such a wide community that has many styles of game that casual players might like if they knew about them. And if there is a player base, the publishers will notice (and hopefully make good games).
I'll try to create my own strategy game soon. That kinda videos was really helpfull! Thank you!
Hey man, how have you been doing with your strategy game? Or you just gave up?
@@davidloveslearning2606 hey if you still there I'm making one and i need help. If you're interested
Great video , this makes me think of asymmetric map design which I love but very seldomly see in RTS games these days .
Company of Heroes 2 definitely has asymmetric map design. Which would be a good thing if the factions didn't have as many flaws and missing tools as they do.
Damn dude nice video! I absolutely love these types.
Rts + horror = possible? I try to build such game and can use some advice
A few thoughts-
-the feelings of horror and rts are about control. You need the players to have control for the game to be fun, but horror relies on feeling helpless.
-for a pvp game, it would be hard to swap between these feelings quickly, so events need to be shocking. There should be powerful abilities and a focus on ambushing.
-Even if the factions are Humans and (Scary Things), I would still try to make it scary for both sides. Humans are dangerous and unpredictable!
-a morale system could replace some functions of health: instead of trading a lot of attacks, you chip away at their sanity, making them vulnerable to a sudden end. This serves the goal of shocking the player.
-make the scale small, so each death feels more impactful.
I hope that helps, and best of luck with your game!
focus on creative use of fog of war and information denial as well as if it's PvE just scary powerful units that can come out of nowhere EG deepstriking and tunneling. It's scary in an rts to not know what you're opponent is gonna do because this increases the chance of all our units getting totally stomped on.
Aside from Starcraft, what are the other rts games shown in this video?
0:00 Company of Heroes 2
0:24 World in Conflict
0:34 C&C Generals
0:59 C&C Tiberium Wars (I think, but its definitely a tiberium game that isnt Tiberiuan Sun or Tiberian Twilight)
2:12 Dawn of War Dark Crusade (or Soul Storm)
3:21 Age of Empires (*I think*)
6:10 Dawn of War 2
6:56 Red Alert 3
@@CallsignYukiMizuki The age of empires one is Rise of Nations
@@CallsignYukiMizuki 0:59 is Starcraft 2, 0:41 is CnC 3.
How about an rts-basebuilding-game where you actually have to decide what the buildings consist of? Presets are available of course, but you could actually customize your own presets. Actual build plans, while not so complicated. Many wouldn't like that, I bet :) Few might, but not many.
Warzone 2100 is game like that
Spore
Earth 2150 does that for units
Necron have 2 resources tho. They have power AND build time bonus.
What is the name of the game in 4:05 please? Thanks in advance!
Hello there, I believe the name of the Game is Dawn Of War II. :) Have fun & enjoy yourself, sir!! :D
Only had minimal experience with ROTR, but it feels like the factions in the mod shift their balance relative to each other as the game progresses, something you said would be better avoided, and I must agree.
GLA and Russia seem like polar opposites in this regard. GLA is super strong earlygame but lose their edge as the game progresses, where Russia is the other way around. I find that when I play GLA against a Russian guy, I either stomp him to the ground right off the bat with him having no tools to stop me, or the game drags on for super long until I just GG out because GLA has excellent survivability but zero offensive power vs lategame Russia.
Agreed.
The pedigry of Red Alert is strong, minor correction: In CnC generals we call them chinese.
@@skorpion7132 I was talking about the Rise of the Reds mod, which includes Russia as a new faction.
Good video. Follow and fav.
No base building is a deal breaker.
Great Video!!
Good points indeed! P.s. what's the track playing in the background starting around 5:55?
One of the USA themes from C&C Generals.
Thanks 😀
interesting vid!
inconsistent map design is not a floor, it makes the game interesting and more real.
how did you play ra3 against other people?
Revora
thanks missed playing ra3 online its been so long.
Seeing as CoH 2 is mostly used for bad examples, I fully agree with you, and I hope Relic take this into account when making DoW III, which undoubtedly will be so, I mean, cmon, at least one of their team members has to see this, right? Anyway, I still don't see what's bad about giving everyone everything needed for basic tools like the USF and UKF's mobile mortar teams and an MG by default for the OKW, forward retreat points and automatic repairs for the Eastern Front Armies, forward barracks like in CoH, etc... They'll still be very different to each other and play differently, take the British and their Infantry Section for example, they'll always be best used in defense more than offense like the other Armies' mainline infantry squads.
Nah... I love asymmetric design factions because I can say "I want to play this faction because only this faction can do X". For instance, my favorite Zero Hour general is Kassad, because I love tech hijacking overlords and sneaky stealth tunnels, and I don't like head-on engagements.
And for the same reason I would prefer the china Tank General because I like tanks.
However the GLA Toxin general makes also a very compelling idea by expanding on the antrax application.
However I would not call these assymetrical design, these are offshoot factions from one of the main factions that are at the core of that asymmetrical ideology. The offshoot factions are usually specializations in a certain area.
After watching your vids...I get the feeling that you don't like DoW...I think DoW is a great RTS compared to the rest....as you love Company of Heroes which uses the mechanics that was first introduced in DoW.
1:26, with respect mate, but this is bullshit. First and foremost, you seem to view it from a perspective that something as small as the mechanical SCV could never transform into a solid structure like a Barracks, yet that exact same logic goes out the window when it concerns an organic unit? I could equally debate a Drone would never possess the required organic material to morph into a Hatchery.
If / When the game (lore) had a perfectly acceptible reason how an SCV could have transformed into a Barracks, you'd eat it like cake all the same. You're simply saying its strange now because it was already established an SCV doesn't work like that.
Another example: If you'd take away any knowledge on Grey Goo, you'd also say that a Goo-cloud would never be able to ultimately become a Bastion or any of the destinct walker-style units because how would a cloud do so? But since we got a perfectly reasonable explanation of how the Goo works we know and believe its possible.
And in a more general fashion: Whats your take on a game like Warzone 2100 then?
With exception of the Nexus Link turret (tower) you as the player can effectively become any of the other faction designwise, just with a different teamcolor. Yet that game has done quite well for itself and even did/capitalized on some revolutionary concepts.
Asymmetric design is popularized for sure, but (and luckily you also say this) not at all required.
Its just far more used because a) game increase in technical fidelity so it allows it and b) most modern game aim to make very destinctively different races or factions.
Note: with race I explicitly refer different species like human, alien, insectoid, robotic etc, and with faction I refer to different groups within a given race (GDI and Nod)
Asymmetric design, you mean like CoH2. We all know how perfectly balanced that is right? Kappa
That's why it's used a bad example here.