Which of these is your favorite RTS of all time?

Votes: 219
-- View Results

Ashes of the Singularity: Road Map 2019

Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2019 By Frogboy


Lots of exciting things happening with Ashes of the Singularity.  With Star Control: Origins released, we've been able to give Ashes some new attention and I wanted to use this post to update you on where we are.

Engine porting

Under the game is the game engine which in Ashes 1.0 was pure Nitrous.  These days, we have taken the Nitrous engine and integrated all the cool stuff we've developed over the years (Game engine wise) to create a game-specific engine we call Cider.  So right now, we're porting Cider to Linux with Ashes being our first test.  

The good news is that we have Ashes kind of sort of working natively on Linux.  The bad news is that the performance isn't quite there yet.  Vulkan is the graphics platform we're targeting and it's still very young.

New entries in the universe

We are working on a new game in the Ashes of the Singularity universe that we will be announcing next month.  Ashes founders will get it either for free or at a steep discount depending on what type of Founder they are.  

Ashes sequels

So the short version is that we aren't going to be making new expansions for Ashes of the Singularity I.  There might be more DLC but the changes we want to make are a little too radical to have as an expansion.   My next post will be talking about what we have in mind for the sequel so you guys can opine on it.  But if you liked SupCom or TA then you will really like where we want to take the sequel.

Stay tuned!


Ashes Dev Journal - King of the Hill Analysis

Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2018 By GGTheMachine


King of the Hill is a scenario for Ashes Escalation where the player has to hold out as long as they can against endless waves of enemies. It plays out like a Tower Defense game; establish a strong defense and continue to place more turrets and upgrade them to bolster your position. Tower Defense games can be quite simple with limited options, but King of the Hill is complex because it's inside of Ashes with all the mechanics and content that the game contains. RTS games, and their cousin Tower Defense, are all about weighing up opportunity costs and making meaningful decisions. 


The core pillar of Tower Defense design is significant variety of creeps and towers, creating a counter system between them that makes composition and placement of towers tactical. Escalation has a huge variety of base defenses compared to most RTS games, so it's an easy conversion to make to tower defense. King of the Hill doesn't go as far as actual Tower Defense games with utility such as slow towers or damage over time, but there are towers strong and weak against certain unit types. Barragers are multipurpose, Drone Bays excel against frigates, Oblivion Turrets destroy dreadnoughts and Artillery Posts provide indirect fire from the back lines. Air units also spawn in and fly straight for the player's Nexus from many directions, so spreading out air defense is reequired.

The enemies in King of the Hill target and attempt to destroy the player's defenses, so a whole range of mechanics normally absent in Tower Defense games are opened up. Players need to think about building Repair Bays or placing Engineers to heal turrets, and investing in Building Health Quantum Upgrades as well as Weapon Damage. Engineers can be quickly picked off so constructing defenses in combat can fail, players may want to invest in Medics to assist the Engineers. Turrets don't just fall from the Sky, they need to be built by Engineers and stacking many together will rapidly decrease the build time. It's a good idea to have a hit squad of Engineers ready to rapidly replace forward turrets once there is a gap in the enemy waves.  

But the challenge isn't just about defenses, King of the Hill gives players the full Escalation tech tree. For prolonged survival when enemy dreadnoughts and juggernauts arrive, the player has to weigh up between the three competing interests of short-term defense via turrets, long-term defense via juggernauts and investment into economy. Each of those three points are not simple and branch off into many sub decisions. Large costs and upgrade time of Oblivion Turrets makes their investment require careful timing else the position can get over-run while the Sentinel is out of action. Players may decide to delay their first Juggernaut for investing in multiple Cronus dreadnoughts to provide fire support. Even investing in Economy requires players toss up between Amplifiers, Optimize Orbital, Refineries and Quantum Relays. The investment of Quanta is then a whole other challenge as Weapon & Health Quantum Upgrades, Optimize and offensive abilities all come from the same Quanta pool. 

King of the Hill especially works as an endless survival mode because of the scalability of Escalation's mechanics. Income levels is near infinite due to Refineries, Harvesters and Quantum Relays so there is no cap where economic growth stops. Quantum Upgrades can also be applied infinitely, though with exponentially increasing costs. Juggernauts automatically receive unlimited combat bonuses each time they level up. Lastly, the the strategic zoom and unit icons helps players monitor their base and incoming unit types at a glance. King of the Hill starts off slow and gentle, but it ends up at becoming insane. 

The last point I love about King of the Hill is the cosmetic element of it due to the scale. Countless rockets and projectiles fly out from the ledge as hundreds of drones circle the creeps and artillery shells rain down from above. Flak projectiles fill the sky as aircraft explode until VVVVVRRRMMMM, a Leonidas beam fills the screen and annihilates an enemy Juggernaut.  You then zoom out and see your entire base saturated with Refineries and Quantum Relays providing a tremendous income. The player constantly receives reports of "Enemy Juggernaut detected." "Enemy Juggernaut destroyed." Witnessing the carnage in King of the Hill is mesmerizing, and it showcases the large-scale gameplay that our engine supports but takes a long time to experience in a regular game of Escalation. 


The main downside of King of the Hill is that it gets quite repetitive due to it only having a single map. Tower Defense games benefit from having many different missions to keep it interesting and make you think on your feet each time you start a new mission. King of the Hill, of course, isn't a Tower Defense game, it's just a scenario inside of a full RTS game. Though, there are other defense style scenarios and campaign missions inside of Escalation. These are timed missions which removes the replay value and means they don't progress past just building defenses. I think King of the Hill would make an incredible co-op experience, and it would be a great introductory game mode into Escalation.

I love Tower Defense games, and King of the Hill provides a deeply strategic and challenging experience due to the inclusion of a full RTS tech tree and mechanics. The variety of towers and creep types which attack the player means players have to balance their defensive compositions carefully, while also weighing up between investment into economy and juggernauts. Quanta provides a great additional element of spending it on permanent Quantum Upgrades or utilizing Orbital Abilities for short-term support. Lastly, the scalability of mechanics in Escalation makes it excel as an endless survival mode mode. King of the Hill is fantastic, and I'd love to see what we could do with that style of gameplay.


Ashes Dev Journal - What RTS can learn from Chess

Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 By GGTheMachine


Chess is one of oldest strategy games of all time, and the most successful having been passed down across generations for two millennia. Depending on how you define esports, Chess could now be considered one via platforms such as, with computerization and AI having increased accessibility and the scope of what's possible within Chess as a product. The long-term thriving and proliferation of Chess is a consequence of incredibly elegant game design both regarding depth but also simplicity. Today I'll be analyzing Chess through the lens of my RTS perspective, praising its design and drawing lessons that RTS games can learn from its success. I'm not a Chess expert, but I have a great appreciation for it, growing up with it and still enjoy playing it casually. 


If I could only pick a single point to praise about Chess, it would be the amount of depth and variation possible within such a limited roster of simple pieces. You can play Chess a hundred times and never feel like you are playing the game twice, yet it isn't convoluted with too many pieces or complex abilities. RTS games should certainly be more complex than chess, but the design philosophy of doing more with less is usually the key to success, with franchises such as StarCraft and Company of Heroes being prime examples of this. There are so many strategies for how Chess can be played, even from the start of the game. Players can open to form a strong Pawn structure, prioritize deployment of Knights and Bishops or look for a Queen trade. Chess doesn't fall into the trap of a slow predictable early game with a delay until the game gets interesting. Likewise, the best RTS will have their early game with room for variance so that every decision is meaningful. 



A unique quality of Chess compared to many other board games is the absence of luck. There's no dice rolling or drawing cards, everything is in the player's control so nothing to blame when you lose. The absence of luck makes the game always fair and means losing is less frustrating, leveraging our competitive drive to improve. The amount of variance and depth within a game devoid of any luck and with such a small unit variety is an absolute marvel. Maximizing variation within a simple framework is an immense challenge that requires precise execution; adjust the starting piece layout in Chess and you could have a more shallow and repetitive game. Throughout the ages, Chess has undergone many changes to the game to improve its game flow and variation, such as the introduction of double pawn movement and changes to the Queen. 

One great thing that Chess does is how the low tier unit, the pawn, is an integral part of the game. Establishing strong pawn structures gives players more stability and safety when deploying pieces around the board, and threatening higher value pieces with pawns can displace your opponent and waste their moves. Pawns also have utility in blocking the King and late game scalability with the promotion mechanic, allowing the pawn to get promoted to any other unit if they reach the end of the board. Instead of looking for King pressure or attacking pieces, a player's mid-game strategy could be to advance their most forward pawn to secure a Queen. RTS games typically benefit from having basic units as a core of the game which then also contain utility and late game scalability.



One of the key pillars of Chess is the unique way in which games are resolved. Rather than wiping all your opponent's pieces or forcing them to surrender, players attack their opponent's King which if successful will result in an instant loss. The vulnerability of the King keeps the stakes of the game high as players always need to play carefully as small mistakes can lead to devastating consequences. Players can't play clumsily just because they currently have an advantage. Multiple modes of success or victory are an inherent anti-snowball mechanic; some RTS leverage alternative win conditions to keep the game flowing better, and there's no doubt Chess would be boring if the only path to victory was through total elimination of pieces. Alternative victory conditions are not necessary to prevent snowballing, but RTS games need more than one path to success else the game loses any tension once a player gets a slight advantage. RTS games typically have the options for deciding engagements with superior control or strategic counters on top of raw numbers.

A large component of Chess, which RTS and most multiplayer video games lack, is the ability to decide matches in a stalemate. If a player is unable to make any moves on their opponent lacks the units to cause a checkmate, the game ends in a draw. Stalemating is a great mechanic because it gives players a reason to continue the struggle even if they have no hope of winning. The only RTS that meaningfully implemented stalemates is Rise of Nations' Nuclear Armageddon mechanic that occurs if too many nukes are deployed. I'd love to see RTS experiment with the introduction of non-binary game outcomes to give players a reason to keep engaged even if they clearly won't win.  A variant of the victory points system from Company of Heroes could be used to draw if no players can take and hold enough territory for the required duration.


Another aspect to the success of Chess is the presentation. Each of the units are visually distinct and unique, both as their 3D objects on a board and their representation in 2D such as computer games. The bishops are pointy, the Rooks are squares and the Knights are a horse. This makes the pieces memorable and makes the learning curve more simple as no two pieces look the same. The representation of each unit as a piece of a medieval battlefield helps players conceptualize the premise and gameplay of chess. There's a difference between abstractions and contrived gameplay, it makes sense for a Knight to be capable of traversing over pieces since cavalry are more mobile than infantry.

Chess as a strategy game is fantastic, but also as a wider product. The mechanics of Chess can be accessed and modified in many ways; starting pieces and layouts can be mixed up, pieces can be remodelled into a different theme, solvable Chess problems can be extracted and analyzed, and it can even be made into whole new games like 3D chess. The amount of variance an entertainment product can have will allow it to thrive in different conditions, a younger player may prefer more wacky rules while an experienced player may want to change the conditions to force them to improvise strategy. Modding is a great feature for RTS games, but I think it's more important to offer multiple ways of accessing the product. This comes in the forms of different game modes and features such as observer mode.



Chess also has a difficulty slider that does not affect the mechanics of the game. Novice Chess players can play in an untimed match where they have as long to consider a move as they wish, while experienced players can test their mastery of variations and speed by playing on a timer. A common accessibility issue for RTS is new players enter the product and learn dynamics completely antithetical to how the more experienced gameplay takes place; playing a singleplayer campaign is a completely different experience to multiplayer which results in forming bad habits that need unlearning. 

Chess is more than just an incredible game, it's a historical triumph and the ultimate manifestation of good strategy game design. Modern RTS games that have adopted the design principles found in Chess have been successful, and designers should be cognizant of why Chess has been so successful.



Ashes Dev Journal: Accessibility Woes of RTS

Posted on Wednesday, August 1, 2018 By GGTheMachine

It's well known that RTS suffer from being less accessible than other genres, but I think the reasoning for why is oversimplified and under-analyzed. Most people attribute the accessibility woes of RTS to their steep learning curve, but that's only part of it. If the steep learning curve is such a hurdle, then why are MOBA's like Dota or League of Legends so immensely popular? I don't think you can argue that StarCraft or Company of Heroes have a steeper learning curve than Dota, which is as hardcore as you can get. A more accurate diagnostic might be that RTS have issues with player retention, it's difficult to get new players hooked on an RTS. Today I'll be exploring what it is that makes RTS suffer from player retention and mention examples from RTS that have attempted tackled these problems.


Delayed Gratification

When playing a multiplayer FPS or a MOBA, gratification is explicit and externally presented to the player. You run around the corner *bang bang* you just got two kills which pop up on the scoreboard, one of them was a headshot. You run into the bomb site and defuse while your team is watching. You won the round. In other genres, you're able to identify success immediately, are presented with direct objectives, and victory is broken up into small increments such as rounds in Counter-Strike or pushing a tower in Dota. Shooters and MOBA's have those individual exciting moments, and the rush of that experience is enough to keep you coming back and tolerate mostly loses in the hope of reliving that exciting triple kill. 

RTS games can be immensely gratifying to play, but there's a critical difference between how it's established in RTS compared to other genres. The gratification found in RTS games is self-directed; to fully discover the enjoyment of RTS, one must first develop a thorough understanding of the game to identify consequences of actions. Let's take an example from StarCraft 2, if I send a Reaper to my opponent's base and I scout a quick Dark Shrine, that feels good. The discovery of that quick Dark Shrine is gratifying to me because I know it's a significant investment early on which I'll now be able to easily counter and get ahead by throwing down Missile Turrets for stealth detection. Furthermore, the process of scouting the Dark Shrine is an achievement, it required me to outplay my opponent by finding a gap in his defending units. If I were a novice StarCraft player, none of this would have happened for many reasons:

  1. To begin with, I wouldn't know that I should scout
  2. I wouldn't know how or when to scout
  3. I wouldn't know what to look for
  4. I might not know the significance of scouting a Dark Shrine
  5. I might not know the correct response of scouting a Dark Shrine. (Build Turrets)

Instead, I wouldn't scout my opponents Dark Shrine, and then several cloaked Dark Templars would run into my base and swiftly murder me. I would be helpless against the cloaked units, and I would have no idea how to respond or how to prevent it happening in future. This feeling of helplessness can be extremely off-putting, us humans need actionable goals and a sense of fairness. When you're new to an RTS, there are lots of things that can be frustrating but little that is exciting.



When you lose in an FPS game it's pretty obvious; they clicked on your head faster than you clicked on their heads. In a MOBA, you can see your failure to dodge an ability resulted in you getting caught. RTS lack the visual clarity that allows new players to identify their mistakes and have a clear trajectory of how to improve. This isn't necessarily a flaw of RTS, part of the depth and challenge of RTS comes from receiving limited information from your opponent and making decisions about how best to respond, it creates the entire dynamic of scouting and counter scouting. I'll be attempting to come up with solutions for the accessibility woes of RTS, but I recognize that it may be unsolvable and at the core of RTS design.

Lack of Social Experiences

RTS can be played in team games, but they don't deliver compelling team experiences and synergies compared to other genres such as MOBA's where each player is assigned a role and class. A support or a carry on their own are worthless, but together they form a powerful combination. Humans yearn to feel valued and offer a unique contribution which MOBA's deliver excellently, whereas in an RTS there's less interaction with your teammates and more interaction with your opponents. In an RTS , if you win a team game, it's generally because of each player outplaying their opponents rather than the players forming a unified team and outplaying their enemy team as a totality. 

RTS games don't deliver the combined sense of comradery that other genres boast, if you win a team game but didn't do well, you may feel like you were letting down your team and not helping. In a MOBA, your ability to perform a unique role such as healing or split pushing always makes you feel as if you're offering a unique contribution to the team, even if you had a bad game. FPS games offer less interaction with your teammates compared to a MOBA, but each round is a new opportunity for one player to have excellent performance, whether it's getting three kills or having the entire team watching as they clutch a round. In an RTS, players are too busy managing their forces to view the actions of their teammates and there's no scoreboard to break down success.

Over the years, RTS have tried to tap into the team-based experience to varying extents. A subtle example is the Commander loadouts in Company of Heroes that can be used to field complementary assets, while the more extreme example is World in Conflict where players pick a specific role such as Aircraft or Infantry and can only build units from that class. The challenge of how RTS can improve the quality of team games and player synergy is a serious question that hasn't been worked out yet, but I think there's still potential for it. 


Contextualizing RTS

It won't occur to those of us who have been playing RTS for a long time, but RTS gameplay is weird and contrived. If someone new to RTS watches you play, they may ask "Why is the camera in the sky?" Or "Wait, you're controlling all of those tanks?" The concept of floating around in the sky and controlling a bunch of things is a lot less intuitive than playing as a soldier in an FPS or as a character in an RPG. RTS games and MOBA's share the same camera system, but MOBA's have the individual hero that players embody to serve as an anchor into the game. Finding ways to anchor players and contextualize the gameplay of RTS is a technique that helps a new player comprehend and immerse themselves. A classic method that RTS have employed to address this is the unit responses such as "Yes my lord" or "What are your orders Commander?"

Voice lines are a great way establishing the player as a leader in command of the battlefield where the actions of units are them responding to their orders. Another great example of establishing context is when zooming out in RUSE, where zooming out far enough depicts the battlefield as a war table monitored by a group of generals. In the background can be seen radios and operators. Think about how much easier it would be for a new player to visualize an RTS if you could just zoom out and show them "I'm a general monitoring and in command of a battlefield."



Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander have a great technique of anchoring the player into the game with the Commanders. In those games, you start with only your Commander which grows your base and forms as the backbone of your production. If the Commander is destroyed, so are you. From the lore perspective, the units in the game are expendable robots, and only the Commander is a person (or alien.) Through both narrative and gameplay, the Commander is the player, and like a MOBA hero, it serves as an anchor and avatar into the game. Other RTS's like Company of Heroes could replicate this by having a Major standing in the base with a map and a radio which suggest the Major is the Commander, who could have their appearance determined by which Commander the player locks in. 

Command and Conquer: Generals - Zero Hour had a great way of personifying each of the sub-factions when playing the Generals Challenge. The sub-factions were all depicted as a general that had their goofy personality and voice acting. When playing Skirmish and Multiplayer, USA Air Force would be described as with the following tooltip: "General Granger Malcome "Ace" Granger prefers to utilize the maximum airpower available to defeat his enemies." General Granger's portrait would then be presented to the player as they loaded into a game. Not only does the personification of the sub-factions give great context to the game, but it enhances the roleplay immersion of the game. I wish Zero Hour did more to emphasize the human side of the sub-factions such as having voice commands that players could send during games, or perhaps unique sub-faction units addressing the player directly as "General Granger."

Player as the Cursor

One method of contextualizing and anchoring players in an RTS is the player-as-the-cursor concept found in games such as Tooth & Tail and Airmech. Commands such as follow, attack or retreat are applied to units based on pressing buttons in relation to the current player's position. Base building in Tooth & Tail relies on the player's current position to determine where a building is placed, while deployment of turrets in Airmech is done manually by transporting units. The Player-as-the-cursor is a big design commitment that greatly limits the amount of possible management, but it has the consequence of making console controllers just as capable of a keyboard and mouse.

Tooth & Tail and Airmech are both available on Xbox as well as PC, and while I haven't done so, playing them on console would be a smooth experience, especially compared to conventional attempts that convert RTS to console. The simplified management and shorter match duration found in those RTS also suits the more casual console experience. For the player-as-the-cursor design to work, the player needs to be very mobile to allow for rapid movement around the map. In Tooth & Tail, the player can quickly burrow between and back to bases, while the Airmech can transform to jet mode and rapidly fly around the small map. 

Lack of Transferability

If you go from playing Call of Duty to Counter-Strike or PUBG, your skill set of reflexes and hand-eye coordination will transfer over and make the learning curve less challenging. While there are recurring concepts and mechanics in RTS, the transferability of RTS is low as there's so much to learn from one RTS to another. It doesn't matter how much Command and Conquer you've played, picking up Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation is going to be a challenge and will require lots of learning. MOBA's also suffer from low transferability because while the mechanics are mostly the same, having to relearn all of the heroes, abilities, and items is a massive undertaking.

The transferability of FPS games means they tend to have shorter life cycles as people constantly move over to new ones. The lack of transferability in RTS means players are more likely to stick to their favorite classics, so a new RTS released in 2018 has to compete with old titles more than other genres have to. The fidelity of RTS has stagnated compared to other genres, as RTS games are more intensive on CPU power than GPU, so playing a new RTS for the sake of better graphics is less prevalent. 


Different Gamemodes

Having alternative casual game modes that players can begin with is a useful way of more gently introducing them to an RTS. The perfect example of this is the Co-op missions found in StarCraft 2. StarCraft's Co-op missions simplify the game and make it less stressful for new players by limiting the unit roster and reducing the complexity of economic and production management. The Co-op missions are also played as sub-factions represented by a character in the StarCraft lore, so it has the advantage of personifying the character you play as. The Co-op missions also provide players with clear objectives instead of the self-direction found in multiplayer and skirmish, and lastly, Co-op has the social team-based experience of playing alongside a friend. 

Other examples of introductory game modes are ARAM (All Random All Middle) in League of Legends, the Arcade in StarCraft 2 which hosts user created mini-games, and The Last Stand survival mode in Dawn of War 2. The best equivalent for Ashes of the Singularity is the King of the Hill scenario which plays out like a tower defense mission, but it would be much better if it included the option for co-op play. Instead of trying to change fundamental RTS design to fix accessibility problems, a better solution might be to put more emphasis on creating introductory secondary game modes.

Archon Mode

StarCraft 2's Archon mode is a great spin on the team game formula. Instead of it being a 2v2 with separate bases, the two players share control of the same forces together. Archon mode requires a lot more interaction among team members as lack of communication can result in contradicting each other's orders. Sharing management of a single base means teams organize them selves into certain roles such as upgrades, microing drops or producing workers. The specialization into roles makes players feel more valued and creates a much greater sense of comradery compared to traditional team games.

Relegating tasks between players alleviates the breadth of responsibility and overwhelming management for each player, so Archon mode serves as a great introduction to StarCraft. The shared control aspect is also just so much fun and I think it's a shame more RTS aren't going down this path, but it wouldn't work in all types of the genre. Archon mode will only work where there is enough management and tasks to share around, but I think it'd also be fun in a game like Company of Heroes where each player can focus on one or two squads each.


RTS are known for having issues with accessibility; the steep learning curve and large amounts of management are contributing factors, but only a piece of the puzzle. The lack of player retention can also be attributed to the delayed self-gratification, lack of social experiences that other genres boast, the contrived gameplay that can be hard for new players to contextualize, and the lack of transferability between RTS. Fixing the accessibility barrier of RTS is a complex topic that may not be possible given the design of the genre, but more emphasis on alternative casual game modes could serve as a great introduction to each title.



Ashes Dev Journal: Map Making Considerations

Posted on Thursday, July 5, 2018 By GGTheMachine


During my time working on Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation, I have made many new maps and reworked countless of the existing ones. There are recurring characteristics for the changes I make to maps, and criteria that I base most of my maps on, so I thought it would be interesting to articulate what it is that governs my map making and rework process. 

Making maps before the release of an RTS is difficult because as a designer, you don't know what formula of maps are going to work the best. Once extensive playtesting happens and feedback starts to emerge, the most popular maps can be replicated and expanded. If you go back and play the launch maps of an RTS game, most of them are laughably bad and imbalanced. In other words, making a bunch of different maps and seeing what sticks is what tends to happen, and it's part of why we ended up with a lot of funky maps that needed reworks. 

Making a map within a formula does not mean all the maps are homogeneous, there's still flexibility and lots of variation between them. Not all maps need to follow this formula, I have made some deliberately designed to be "noob maps" with little aggression opportunities, but it's useful to have a format in mind to base maps on to cater standard play. As a designer, you want to give players the freedom to play your game any way they want, but it is valuable to have a clear vision in mind for what you think the best way to play it is. If a designer focuses on delivering a particular experience, it can be iterated upon and refined to give more depth and longevity to the game. When I'm designing maps, here's what I consider:

Proportion of choke points to open terrain

If there are too many choke points, base defenses lock down the map, and it becomes very defensive and campy. Alternatively, aggression becomes overly prominent if a map is so open that players can easily avoid base defenses. There's a sweet spot in the middle, where the game flow is not too fast but not too slow. I typically aim for maps to have both areas of open terrain and other areas of choke points to create decision making about where and when to attack. The gentle use of high ground is important as high ground offers a strong defender's advantage. 

Proportion of Metal to Radioactives

There's a similar a sweet spot for the proportions of resources; too much Metal and you're forced to spam frigates, but not enough Metal and frigates are neglected over high tech units. I aim for a 2.5/1 ratio of Metal to Radioactives as that's where the most strategic diversity occurs. It's not as simple as just counting the number of deposits, the accessibility of the resources and how dense they are for Amplifiers and Refineries is also a consideration. 


Moderate use of cutoffs

Cutoffs are frustrating if they're overly punishing, but can offer interesting tactical gameplay if done cautiously. Disconnecting a player's base from the resources of the map should require cutting off at least two regions, with single cutoff points only used for smaller amounts of resources out on the map. 


Mirrored but asymmetric layouts.

Maps should be mirrored for all spawns to be balanced, but the layout of regions and resources can be asymmetric to allow for exploitation of the map's layout to cater specific strategies. Let's do some analysis of Seginus: 

The non-linear region design of Seginus and asymmetric sides offers lots of flexibility for different capping orders.

  1. Players can delay capturing of the left side and some of the central Metal regions to rush the Radioactives regions to fuel faster air units or tech.
  2. Players wishing for an aggressive game can forego the sides to rush the central Metal region which boasts 4 Metal Deposits, but will need to keep up the pressure in order to hold the region and prevent counter-attacks.
  3. Players wishing to turtle could rush the Turinium Generators on the high ground, then lock them down with defenses and artillery to deny their opponent movement around the map and hold out for a VP win.


No ideal locations

Good maps make players think about which regions they prioritize, especially with our creeps that must first be cleared before a Generator can be captured. No maps should have overly strong positions that players default to every game because everything else is sub-optimal. There should be pros and cons to different areas on the map, if the middle has the same resources as the sides then players will prioritize the middle every time because it grants the ability for quicker map rotation. An area that grants high mobility should have fewer resources than the sides, while Turinium Generators and the rich resource regions should be spread out from each other. A bad map is predictable and repetitive, and while some maps have a center rich in resources, the exposed position means they're risky to saturate.


Tidiness and consistency

I don't want to talk about cosmetics in this journal, but this point also bleeds into gameplay. If there's inconsistent spacing between regions it looks messy and means the game doesn't flow as well. Having several low yield regions right next to each other can create tedious gameplay of capturing and building Extractors. To tidy up a few maps I condensed regions together into a single richer region and standardized distances between Generators.



Clearly defined player resources

Team members shouldn't be competing and bickering over resources. For team maps, resources near a player's base should be located in a way to suggest which regions each team member is supposed to capture. It's a limitation of our interface that you can't gift regions to allies, but either way, you don't want players and the AI accidentally capturing their allies regions because they're too close. All spawns should be balanced with access to equal amounts of resources; no one should get stuck with the bad spawn. Here's a breakdown of Delta Serpentis that shows each player's equal access to designated resources, despite there being lots of possibility for team strategy and combined attacks.



If you already have a Stardock Account, please use it to log in. If not, you can create one here:

Email Address: *
Username: *
Password: *
Confirm Password: *
First Name:
Last Name:

*Required fields