With the recent article about the progress of Command and Conquer Generals 2, Victory Games have stated their intentions to release new Sub-factions (Generals) over time. This has the option to turn out either really good or really bad. The thing that concerns me about this is not so much the balance, as with free to play game it's in the best interests for everyone involved to properly balance out all their content for a long-term success. Victory Games seem like top blokes and have given us no reason to suggest they have any intentions of making paid content stronger or unbalanced. Balance issues are inevitably going to happen, but balance is a temporary and fixable issue. Design however is not.
That is what my concern is; how well the sub-factions are
actually designed, integrated and implemented. It is my opinion that the vast
majority of sub-factions from Both C&C Zero Hour and Kane's Wrath are
poorly designed, shallow and dull. The issue I have with the design process that I'd imagine they'd have used in existing titles, is that it would look something like this:
- Get an idea for a faction. We'll use Air Force General as the example.
- Buff some units/abilities that coincide with the theme of the faction. (King Raptors, Stealth Commanches, Point Laser Defense, Combat Chinooks)
- How do we to balance it out? Which other parts of the faction do we weaken or remove to compensate? (Tanks)
This results on the sub-faction actually having less than
the vanilla faction. Certain aspects of the faction are not being modified in an interesting way, but
are being completely strengthened whilst other parts are being removed to compensate. Let's take a
look at King Raptors. Does it change the functionality and interaction compared
to regular Raptors? Nope. They still do the exact same thing and in the exact
same way, they just do it better. They are strong against tanks, buildings and
air units whilst are weak against anti air units such as Quads, Gattlings and Avengers. The King Raptor doesn't actually change the unit functionality and
interaction from the regular Raptor.
And in exchange for stronger aircraft, USA Air Force General loses the ability to build
Tanks. Part of the base faction is being removed, limiting the variety and
strategies that the player can do. I'm going to talk about to the opening build orders, but not in regards to the balance or viability. What's important is design. The USA Player now has less options. A
Vanilla USA player with their full arsenal had the possibility to experiment
with different builds and openings. For example they could do the standard USA
opening with a fast Barracks and War Factory to get an early Rocket Humvee and
then from there start spamming Rockvees. That's prettymuch regarded as the strongest way to open as USA. There are also other options
they could do such as dual-Factory Paladin spam, or perhaps a 1 War
Factory with Tanks followed by an Air Field. USA Air Force General doesn't get Tanks though, so these options are of not at all possible. The same situation occurs with Super Weapon General where they have but 1 choice how to open... Rockvee spam!
Even if that wasn't the case, the point is that it's lowering the amount of possible variations and strategy. Another example is GLA Stealth; they still get quite a few options for openings such as Tech RPG, Tech Terror, defensive oil grab and so on. GLA Stealth also can not build talks so they lose some of their possible openings such as a dual-War Factory Scorp/Maurader/Quad spam. Again, I'm not trying to talk about balance or actual feasibility, just the principle of design. And that's absolutely terrible, these sub-factions are actually subtracting from the game. They're limiting what a player is able to do, and shrinking down the possibilities and dynamics of the game.
Let's talk about good unit design now. I've already mentioned how I don't like the Air Force's signature unit, the King Raptor. That's because it doesn't change the way the unit interacts and function. Those are probably going to be my two favourite words of this blog. Interaction and functionality. This is what I regard as the best designed unit, likewise from the best designed faction as a whole. (I'll get the that later) The Nuke Battlemaster from China Nuke General! I absolutely love this unit because it has both strengths and weaknesses in itself without directly having to offset a huge weakness on something else to compensate. It moves faster, does more damage and fires out radiation that can damage infantry. In this respect it's obviously a lot better than a regular Battlemaster, but where it gets interesting is the powerful explosion that it causes when it is destroyed. It damages both friendlies and enemies, so it can potentially be very rewarding with careful control and micro. On the other hand it can be a huge consequence to the player if neglected and lets the explosion damage his own units, especially when it causes a big chain reaction of other Nuke Battlemasters. The faster movement speed also then makes them good for crushing infantry So why do I like the design of the Nuke Battlemaster so much? What does this actually change? It changes the interaction, how players interact with it.
Even if that wasn't the case, the point is that it's lowering the amount of possible variations and strategy. Another example is GLA Stealth; they still get quite a few options for openings such as Tech RPG, Tech Terror, defensive oil grab and so on. GLA Stealth also can not build talks so they lose some of their possible openings such as a dual-War Factory Scorp/Maurader/Quad spam. Again, I'm not trying to talk about balance or actual feasibility, just the principle of design. And that's absolutely terrible, these sub-factions are actually subtracting from the game. They're limiting what a player is able to do, and shrinking down the possibilities and dynamics of the game.
 |
| Look familiar? |
Let's talk about good unit design now. I've already mentioned how I don't like the Air Force's signature unit, the King Raptor. That's because it doesn't change the way the unit interacts and function. Those are probably going to be my two favourite words of this blog. Interaction and functionality. This is what I regard as the best designed unit, likewise from the best designed faction as a whole. (I'll get the that later) The Nuke Battlemaster from China Nuke General! I absolutely love this unit because it has both strengths and weaknesses in itself without directly having to offset a huge weakness on something else to compensate. It moves faster, does more damage and fires out radiation that can damage infantry. In this respect it's obviously a lot better than a regular Battlemaster, but where it gets interesting is the powerful explosion that it causes when it is destroyed. It damages both friendlies and enemies, so it can potentially be very rewarding with careful control and micro. On the other hand it can be a huge consequence to the player if neglected and lets the explosion damage his own units, especially when it causes a big chain reaction of other Nuke Battlemasters. The faster movement speed also then makes them good for crushing infantry So why do I like the design of the Nuke Battlemaster so much? What does this actually change? It changes the interaction, how players interact with it.
Not only does this change the interaction for the Nuke General, but it's especially good because it changes the interaction for the other player as well. For example, if there is a weak Nuke Battlemaster that's about to die, the Nuke General would want to split it up from the rest of his own units to avoid damaging them and even perhaps sending it towards the enemy tanks to damage them instead. To mitigate this, the other player would have to split his own units to minimise the damage or he might even choose to ignore it so he doesn't harm his own units at all. It can also dictate which unit he would choose to focus. Destroying a Nuke Battlemaster nearby weak units such as infantry would be more important than focusing a Nuke Battlemaster nearby high health units such Overlord tanks. The Nuke Battlemaster clearly has altered interaction, it requires delicate control and tactics and in a fun yet very skilful way. But does it modify the functionality?
 |
| Woops |
Regular Battlemasters do the same thing as all the other Main Battle Tanks right? They're strong against vehicles, other tanks and buildings, but are weak against rocket troops and aircraft. For the most part Nuke Battlemasters are the same, the radiation shells and their movement speed make them stronger against infantry but they still get countered rather hard by rocket troops. What their movement speed increase means though, is that Nuke Battlemasters have gone from being one of the slowest units in the game to one of the fastest. Regularly Battlemasters are only only good defensively or as part of a main army. However due to their new speed, and especially in conjunction with their explosive death they are now a very good aggressive and harassment unit for things such as workers, trucks and dozers. Compare all this to China Tank General's Battlemasters who have nothing different over vanilla Battlemasters other then just being stronger overall. I could go on all day about why I think Nuke General is an awesomely designed faction, but I'll try and be brief.
The other signature Nuke General unit is the Nuke Mig; it is able to deliver very powerful tactical Nuke shells but must be researched from the Nuke silo first. This makes it a very late game and rare thing to see. The Nuke Mig however, does lose the firestorm ability and the Black Napalm upgrades. Therefore it's sacrificing mid-game potency for late-game strength, changing its strategic value through a self-imposed weakness as opposed to being a simple buff at the expensive of something else. The other thing I absolutely love is the isotope stability ability upgrade. The upgrade removes their death explosion completely which gives you the interesting decision of whether or not you want to keep using the Nuke Battlemasters for their offensive death explosion or if you want to use them as the strong main army battle tank that they are without having to worry their death explosion wiping out your own upgrade. This is a good example of cool ways that add in more variety, depth and strategy.
 |
| Why can't you all be more like this guy |
Nuke General still does have partial nerfs to other areas of their arsenal in the form of a price increase to infantry and aircraft. However these nerfs aren't a problem because it's not actually removing any content and the units are all still perfectly viable, therefore not lowering the variety and options of possible strategies at your disposal. A sub-faction should be an expansion of an existing faction, with it's own strength and weaknesses that not only balance each other out, but also blend to make their own interesting and unique dynamic. A sub-faction definitely should not be making one half of the faction stronger, and the other half removed or weakened. This can be a very bad thing to do, because it then eliminates possible variations or strategies. If one faction doesn't get tanks, and the opponents faction doesn't get aircraft than that match up is going to be very predictable, repetitive and one-sided isn't it. This is why self-imposed weaknesses are so important, because then the rest of the faction doesn't have to be particularly weakened or rebalanced to compensate so consequently everything else is still viable and is an option for players to employ.
I'll make one last comparison and wrap this up. This time another unit that I think is well designed, but not from Zero Hour. None other then the the Black Hand Purifier from C&C Kane's Wrath! The Purifier is a modification of the Nod Avatar War-Mech. It comes with the same weapon and health, except it also comes with a bad-arse shoulder mounted flame thrower that melts away infantry, buildings, clears garrisons as well as it can even be pretty strong against vehicles with the Purifying Flame upgrade. Sounds cool right, what's the catch? It has a huge price increase of $3000 from $2200, and a build time increase of 30 seconds from 22. The Purifier, like the others that I mentioned have modified interaction and functionality. Players can now use the Purifier to melt through infantry, buildings and garrisons whilst still being a powerful anti-vehicle unit. However the self imposed weakness of the large price and build time increase no longer make it cost-effective against tanks. Cool, that makes it different. If you want cost efficient anti-tank Avatars, don't play Black Hand. This is variety, fantastic.
On the flip side to a similar unit, but what I think is a boring and dull design is the Reaper-17 Reaper Tripod. It's an upgraded version of the Annihilator Tripod but unlike the Purifier it doesn't really change anything, it's just a stronger version of the Annihilator Tripod with no weaknesses at all in comparison. The addition of the Reaper Tripod doesn't really add in anything new to the game. They do the same thing as Annihilator Tripods and playing against them is no different from playing against Annihilator Tripods. It's just a little bit stronger and looks different. At least the Consume Tiberium ability requires a bit of interaction, but in a rather uninteresting and dull way. When you think about it, what does adding in Reaper Tripods from Annihilator Tripods actually add to the game? Not much at all does it. Playing with or playing against Reaper Tripods isn't really any different from Annihilator Tripods. Whereas Purifiers change the way players interact with the Avatar, but also due do the change of function it'll effect the army compositions. Substituting Avatars for Purifiers means the player wouldn't need as much anti-infantry but more anti-tank. It'll also change the way the opponent will deal with it in terms of micro and army composition too. The Purifier is shaking up and changing the match-up by expanding the game and adding in more variety and depth. This is good, this is what we want in a RTS.
In conclusion I'll recap the points I've raised here.
Whilst I have a lot of faith in the developers of Generals 2, my biggest concern is that they might neglect a high standard of sub-faction design in favour of appealing to a casual audience who don't care, and just want to see lots of awesome looking aircraft blow stuff up. Whilst sub-factions and other content can be perfectly balanced, they still hold the ability to damage and stagnate the game. So let's sure hope they get it right, but only time will tell. It sure as hell looks awesome though.
 |
| Though the Purifier still has a long way to go in terms of bad-arse |
On the flip side to a similar unit, but what I think is a boring and dull design is the Reaper-17 Reaper Tripod. It's an upgraded version of the Annihilator Tripod but unlike the Purifier it doesn't really change anything, it's just a stronger version of the Annihilator Tripod with no weaknesses at all in comparison. The addition of the Reaper Tripod doesn't really add in anything new to the game. They do the same thing as Annihilator Tripods and playing against them is no different from playing against Annihilator Tripods. It's just a little bit stronger and looks different. At least the Consume Tiberium ability requires a bit of interaction, but in a rather uninteresting and dull way. When you think about it, what does adding in Reaper Tripods from Annihilator Tripods actually add to the game? Not much at all does it. Playing with or playing against Reaper Tripods isn't really any different from Annihilator Tripods. Whereas Purifiers change the way players interact with the Avatar, but also due do the change of function it'll effect the army compositions. Substituting Avatars for Purifiers means the player wouldn't need as much anti-infantry but more anti-tank. It'll also change the way the opponent will deal with it in terms of micro and army composition too. The Purifier is shaking up and changing the match-up by expanding the game and adding in more variety and depth. This is good, this is what we want in a RTS.
In conclusion I'll recap the points I've raised here.
- Sub-faction design is very critical because unlike balance it can't be easily fixed.
- Poorly designing and integrating sub-faction involves making some parts stronger, and offsetting a weakness onto something else to compensate or removing it entirely.
- This causes the sub-faction to have less depth, strategy and variation than the original faction, causing it to be predictable, repetitive, less interesting and less skilful. By adding in a sub-faction like this, it's effectively subtracting from the game.
- Good sub-faction design is adding in content with a modified interaction and functionality instead of just being an absolute upgrade. This changes the flow of the game which adds more variety and depth to the game
- New content in a sub-faction should contain a self-imposed or relevant weakness. As a result other parts of the existing faction do not have to be as weak, rebalanced or removed to compensate, so the existing dynamics and strategies are still viable and explorable.
Whilst I have a lot of faith in the developers of Generals 2, my biggest concern is that they might neglect a high standard of sub-faction design in favour of appealing to a casual audience who don't care, and just want to see lots of awesome looking aircraft blow stuff up. Whilst sub-factions and other content can be perfectly balanced, they still hold the ability to damage and stagnate the game. So let's sure hope they get it right, but only time will tell. It sure as hell looks awesome though.
