Era Equestria - A Pony-Themed RTS

[AdventLegacy 3]

Hello everypony. I'm thinking about making a pony-themed RTS. If I decide to go through with it, I would like to aim for top-notch quality. I've come to this forum seeking input from the community and to gauge the level of interest in such a game.

So what would you like to see? Have any cool ideas you'd like to share? Are just ponies OK or would multiple playable races be mandatory? How do you feel about hero units? Keep in mind, though, that the more complicated the idea is, the longer it will take to develop. Speaking of which, I expect development to take on the order of a couple of years.

The tentative name I've come up with for this project is "Era Equestria". In my initial vision for this game, the player advances through 4 "eras" analogous to "ages" in Age of Empires: Era Disharmonia, Era Sororibus, Era Luminis, and Era Magicae. However, I'm considering discarding this system in favor of a more Starcraft-style progression in which the player must construct particular buildings before being able to construct others.

I look forward to your input!

[Onil Innarin 0]

That would be truly amazing. But I have no idea how a pony RTS is going to work. I'm leaning toward your second idea for the progression system however.

[AdventLegacy 3]

4 hours ago, Onil Innarin said:

That would be truly amazing. But I have no idea how a pony RTS is going to work. I'm leaning toward your second idea for the progression system however.

Thanks for your input! I like the idea of four eras and the names I came up with for them, but the second progression system makes more sense when it comes to campaigns and multiple playable races.

For instance, if there's a campaign dealing with the banishment of King Sombra, it wouldn't really make sense from a story point of view for the player to ever advance to Era Luminis (which is supposed to correspond to Celestia's reign after the banishment of NMM). So the player would have to be limited to Era Disharmonia and Era Sororibus during that campaign, but that sounds very limiting from a gameplay point of view. Furthermore, the eras only make sense for the pony races and don't really apply to, say, griffons or changelings.

[AdventLegacy 3]

I have prior experience with the Unity game engine, but for this project I'm looking to go open source. Godot is looking fairly promising to me. Does anyone know of a great game engine they'd like to recommend? It doesn't have to support every system under the Sun and Moon; as long as it can export to the major Desktop OSs (Windows, MacOS and Linux), I'd be happy with that. Support for a commonplace language (such as C#) would be a plus but is not necessary.

I've decided that the game should be done in 3D. Although I could mimic the show's style better with 2D, I feel that 3D assets would be significantly less work. With 3D animation, only 1 walk cycle, 1 attack animation, 1 death animation, etc. needs to be created for each unit. In 2D, the same animation would have to be re-made for each perspective (front view, side view, 3-Quarters view, back view, and Back-3-Quarters view). Any experienced game devs or animators out there with a differing opinion? I've only done a little bit of 3D animation myself, although I'm experienced with 2D animation.

[Shadow Beam 1,179]

You might find answers to such inquiries within Button Mash's Code Library. ^^

[AdventLegacy 3]

4 hours ago, Shadow Beam said:

You might find answers to such inquiries within Button Mash's Code Library. ^^

D'oh! I guess I really should have looked in there earlier. I see there's a couple of good game engines recommended. Cryengine looks amazing graphics-wise, but they're not really open source. Panda3D is another viable option; it's interesting that it was initially developed by Disney.

I don't like the way the graphics look in games developed in Panda3D and Godot, though. I've looked around a little more, and it seems there's quite a few open source 3D game engines out there. I'll need to do some research (and write my findings in the Button Mash Code Library)

 

New Topic: Flying Units

One thing about ponies that works really well with the RTS concept is the existence of three specialized pony races that easily translate into three categories of units. It seems natural to have a Barracks to train strong, grounded earth pony units, a Flight Academy to train flying pegasi units, and a Magic School to train magic unicorn units.

But what about other playable nations? Zebras could have no naturally flying units, whereas ALL the units of a Griffon kingdom would be flying. This presents a balancing problem I've been thinking about lately. Airship units could serve as an equalizer. Zebras could build airships and perhaps zebra airships should be stronger than Equestrian ones to compensate for their lack of non-airship flying units. Likewise, perhaps griffons would have weaker airships and/or a smaller selection to choose from.

Alternatively, the game could involve only the 3 primary pony races and the playable nations could be The Solar Empire, The Lunar Republic, and... perhaps the Crystal Empire (and let it train pegasi and unicorns)?

Edited April 4, 2018 by AdventLegacy
Didn't realize my 2 posts would be merged into 1.

[AdventLegacy 3]

 

New Topic: Balancing types of units

[AdventLegacy 3]

I've been thinking some more about the fact that most civilizations in MLP contain either all flying creatures (Griffonstone, Hippogrifia, changeling swarm) or all non-flying creatures (Zebras, Crystal Empire, Storm kingdom). There's a more significant balancing issue I've realized recently. Walls do not stop flying creatures, so the effectiveness of your static defenses would be tremendously impacted by which civilization you're up against. I do not consider this acceptable. Therefore, I've decided that all playable civilizations must have a combination of flying and nonflying units. Furthermore, there should be incentive to train nonflying units in order to prevent flying units from dominating the game (a simple counter-unit to flying units might be enough).

As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Zebras could build airships. This results in a nonflying + flying combination. The same goes for The Crystal Empire and Storm Kingdom. Griffons, Hipogriffs, and Changelings, however, should not be playable civilizations on their own. Instead, they would need to be paired with a non-flying ally. Perhaps one playable civilization could be "The Northern Alliance", consisting of crystal ponies, yaks, and griffons. Since such an alliance is not canon, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I also suppose it's not impossible that there are non-flying types of changelings (we don't see any in the show, though, do we?). Perhaps the changelings could be playable after all if non-flying types are included.

[JunkerKun 7]

Why don't you use an already existing engine? MegaGlest is good enough for a fan project (https://megaglest.org/). It is free and open-source which means you can add whatever you want without any problems as long as you know C++. And for light changes like rebalancing or model changes you don't even need to change the source code. If we're to believe what is written on their web site...

Edited April 7, 2018 by JunkerKun

[AdventLegacy 3]

4 hours ago, JunkerKun said:

Why don't you use an already existing engine? MegaGlest is good enough for a fan project (https://megaglest.org/). It is free and open-source which means you can add whatever you want without any problems as long as you know C++. And for light changes like rebalancing or model changes you don't even need to change the source code. If we're to believe what is written on their web site...

That is a very interesting idea. I had always assumed I would be building this game from scratch, but if there are open-source RTSs out there already, I suppose I could just use one of those. I do know C++, so I'll definitely look into this possibility. Thanks for the idea!

[AdventLegacy 3]

I've made a tentative decision about which civilizations will be playable for this game: The Crystal Empire, The Changeling Swarm, and Equestria.

There are several reasons why these particular civilizations work well together:
    1. Many units will be ponies of one kind or another, so models can more easily be re-used.
    2. There is potential for completely different styles of play. Equestria will have its 3 balanced pony races; the Crystal Empire will have more airships, no winged units, and its magic units will work differently (I'm not sure exactly how yet), and I like to think that the Changeling style of play will somewhat resemble that of the Zerg from Starcraft.
    3. All three civilizations have interacted with each other before in the show, so there is a rich lore to draw from when creating campaign storylines.

I've already begun developing a storyline for 3 campaigns (one for each civ) that naturally flows from one campaign to the next. But before I go any further with that, I'm going to deeply explore all the possibilities for types of units and styles of play and make sure that this selection of civilizations would work. Also, writing/scripting is certainly not my special talent and I should maybe put that task into the hands of a more talented writer.

Another idea that's recently come to mind is the possibility of choosing a hero unit that has an impact on your civilization. For example, if you are playing as Equestria and you choose Luna as your hero, perhaps this could unlock batpony units, dress all your units in nightguard armor, and give your units and buildings other specific benefits. Perhaps Luna would also have a "Raise the Moon" ability to boost the morale of your units. Choosing Celestia could unlock, say, phoenixes and dress all your units in "normal" armor. Celestia would have a similar ability, "Raise the Sun". I think people would have a lot of fun playing out battles between the Solar Empire and New Lunar Republic this way.

[e^2 5]

I used to have an account but it wouldn't let me in. So after wanting to reply to this but some time but MLP Forums refusing to link it to Poniverse, screw it. New account it is. RTS's have been on of my favorite video game genres, Starcraft: Brood War being my favorite. Now, I'm not game designer, so do consider what I say with a grain of salt.

I do have an idea for a universe, and that is the Equestria Divided fan universe: https://equestria-divided.deviantart.com

The tl:dr, so to say, are that the celestial sisters disappear from Equestria yet the sun and moon function like normal and each of the Mane 6 separate in efforts to shape the future of the kingdom in their image. There are already units for each faction or House. Do check it out and see if it is something of interest.

Different races/ factions keep the design asymmetrical which can appeal to different players and what they desire. In Tiberium Wars, players getting into the game will appeal to NOD, GDI, or Scrin depending on various factors like how the faction plays, the personality, and theme.

My personal view on hero units are that they should be restricted to the campaign only. If I recall correctly, Warcraft 3 is an RTS with hero units that can level up. Another game that takes this to a lesser extent is Red Alert 2, in which there are units that are "heros" in the lore and story, but you can have them in multiplayer. They have clear cut roles and/ or niches, so it isn't always an advantage to get them.

Starcraft tech/ building progression would be good. Depends on how you want to the game to function. Is it more building focused? Unit focused? Somewhere in the middle?

Assuring that each faction has some sort of air units or at the very least anti air is critical. In Starcraft: Brood War (BW), there are race matchups where air units are essential. For Protoss vs Zerg, the meta is for the Protoss to get Corsairs for scouting initially but later on killing Overlords and responding to Mutalisks. Protoss ground units in general have a lot of trouble dealing with air units, especially an air unit that is particular fast like the Mutalisk. The thing with the current idea of how the factions are laid out is that there needs to be some worldbuilding and additions to the lore to make sure it makes sense to accommodate for air units for factions that naturally don't have them (e.g. Zebras, Earth Ponies, etc).

When it comes to the balancing of units, hard counters/ Rock-Paper-Scissors design is fine, but measures of soft counters and even matchups needs to be devised. From word of mouth, some people have beef with games like Overwatch and Starcraft II because there is too much Rock-Paper-Scissors design, to the point where outplay is neigh impossible. Not saying these games are bad, but having too much hard counter design can be detrimental. Having some soft counters/ checks will make outplay and execution of the player a possibility. I can 't give you an example from the top of my head, but in competitive Pokemon, there are Pokemon that "checks" an opposing Pokemon while some serve as "counters".

https://www.smogon.com/smog/issue32/checks-and-counters

The other thing is "even" matchups. This is where the outcome of the battle is mainly on the execution of the player. Let's use the simplest matchup in BW, Terran vs Protoss, as an example. The army compositions for both races in this matchup is very static. The Terran's core units are Siege Tank + Vulture. The Protoss' core units are Dragoon + Zealot. There are other units down the line that help "mature", "develop" or "support" the core army such as Shuttles, Arbiters, Observers, and Science Vessels, but the 4 units I've mentioned are the meat and potatoes. You will see games where Tank/ Vulture obliterates Zealot/ Dragoon. You will see a similar amount of games where Zealot/ Dragoon eviscerates Tank/ Vulture. The units are evenly matched, so to say (there are nuances, but for simplicity's sake) and the outcome of the battle rests on how the respective players use and manage the units and bends the game in their own favors both before and during the fight.

[AdventLegacy 3]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! Although I'm interested in a somewhat darker portrayal of Equestria, parts of the Equestria Divided universe are a little too brutal for my liking (like house Earthborn cutting off the horns of unicorns and the House of Moon and Star employing slave labor). I do find the background story and setting engaging. Everyone has a goal that pits them against each other, and there's a lot tied to the religious question of whether the royal sisters still control the Sun and Moon or were always lying about it. Each faction has its own style/strategy that sets it apart from the others. Perhaps I could work with a slightly lighter version of this universe, or borrow components from it. I'll think about it some more.

I absolutely love the unit designs. If nothing else, I'd definitely like to borrow/steal some of those. Do you happen to know whether PoorYorick still around somewhere?

I like the way heroes are handled in LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth. Hero units level up and acquire more powerful abilities as they get more kills. I assume Warcraft 3 has a similar thing going on (I haven't played it). You make a very good point about hero units not always being an advantage if they have a niche role, though. Perhaps I'll limit their appearance to campaigns, then.

I like to think this game would be somewhere between building/economy-focused and unit-focused. Something like AOE2 or Starcraft.

What do you think of this idea: changing the style of matchup depending on which civs are playing. For example, when the matchup is Equestria vs Equestria we have a "rock-paper-scissors" setup, but when it's Equestria vs Changelings, we get a "static" matchup?

 

[e^2 5]

Yeh. It's a dark universe and I completely understand if people are put off by it. Certainly not for everyone. That being said, the units are creative and the overall lore does make the likes for an RTS, as you have stated.

I'm glad you love the unit designs as much as many others do. As for PoorYorick, I do now know about his status. He has a FimFiction account but it's been offline for two years. From what I know, he is off the grid.

https://www.fimfiction.net/user/103714/PoorYorick

Speaking of FimFiction, Equestria Divided has a page based on it and even have a forum of it.

https://www.fimfiction.net/group/197422/equestria-divided/forum

There are even RTS based threads you might want to check out if you want to go forth with this idea.

I think another disclaimer is at hand is that I'm no expert of Starcraft or RTS design. Not even that good at the game either so do take what I say about the game with a grain of salt as well. These are simply my observations and what I've learned through my enthusiasm.

An RTS where "hero units" work is in Red Alert 2. For instance, in the lore, Tanya is an allied hero and am important character in the story, appearing in the live action cutscenes and her death being a failure condition. You can actually get this unit in the multiplayer, if I recall. She is balanced in some sense. She can mow down literal hordes of infantry units, insta-kill buildings and boats, but doesn't deal anything to vehicles such as tanks and visibly struggles in combat with static defenses. Yuri is the hero unit for the Soviets and is also critical to the story, has no attack, but a single ability to mind control a single enemy unit. If Yuri chooses to mind control another unit, the current unit under his control is released from his grasp. Both "hero" units seem balanced while still giving off the aura of power and importance. There are other details with these units but they don't pertain to the current discussion.

I've played LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth before. I don't recall all the details, but I think the heros were also powerful, influential, but not too OP to leave the victim completely helpless. I'll have to look into it if the time allows.

21 hours ago, AdventLegacy said:

I like to think this game would be somewhere between building/economy-focused and unit-focused. Something like AOE2 or Starcraft.

Understood. Then from this, the tech tree can be focused on what buildings are present and said techs results in the units that can be micro-ed.

Your idea sounds great, I think. There is an interesting thing about the mirror matchups when it comes to Starcraft. Bizarrely enough, these matchups are incredibly thematic and it exemplifies and brings out the personalities of the races.

Terran vs Terran is all about taking territory and pre-occupying resources, players even taking inefficient and seemingly unreasonable fights to take resources where they will expand later, even if it cannot be extracted right then and there. A common thing that also happens in TvT is this "line" across the map; a no man's land. It isn't a surprise if a game takes a very long time and all of the resources on the map is exhausted. The pacing is slower than most matchups and moves are clearly seen like a game of Chess. This all looks similar to how humans wage conventional war in real life.

Protoss vs Protoss is dynamic, micro-intensive, and requires the player to predict and read the opponent. It's a matchup that definitely requires experience. Most, if not all, ground units are on the table. It's filled with trickery, deception, and predicting the enemy's technology. The game and fight goes back and forth given both players are even in skill. It looks like two tribes clashing. Even for experienced casters, viewers, and players, the winner isn't always clear. Seems fitting for an advanced, psionic alien race.

Zerg vs Zerg is volatile, degenerate, and fast paced. Games rarely ever get to late game tech and it is uncommon for the game to ever exceed 10 minutes. It's a slugfest that some people joke that it isn't even a matchup. Both players are functioning on a very sensitive and low economy. Even one wrong move and the enemy can slash your jugular, causing you to lose. Makes sense for insectoid aliens to fight like the animals they are.

Now, I don't know if Blizzard designed the races and their units with this in mind, but it does point to how well the design is.

As for your idea, I think it makes sense. Equestria is a diverse kingdom with a variety of citizens with a myriad of talents. There would be a rock-paper-scissors element in that matchup. Changeling vs Equestria would make sense to be more "static" as Changeling are a single race, to put it simply as possible.

There is a Starcraft meta matchup that I'd to talk about regarding this but time is short at the time of writing this.

Thanks! Have a great day!

[AdventLegacy 3]

I wanted to post an update here real quick lest everyone think I died/left. Things have been busy in school. The semester is coming to an end, so all those big projects are coming due. I'm enrolled in a Computer Science program but also taking some animation classes. After graduation, I would really like to work in the video game industry.

I'd like Era Equestria to be a useful educational experience for me in addition to providing a creative outlet for my love of ponies. I'm aware that there are already animated SFM and blender models of ponies available, but I've never built and rigged my own 3D model from scratch (rigs have always been provided for us in the animation classes). I'd like to develop first-hand experience with that process, so I've begun working on a Blender model of a generic mare. I'll post it here when I've got something presentable.

After considering various game engines and the possibility of modifying MegaGlest or another existing game, I still find myself drawn the most to Godot. It has a very modern-looking interface, exports to lots of platforms, and seems to have pretty good support and an active community. There are already many useful tutorials on YouTube. Building the game from scratch in Godot will provide the richest learning experience and give me the ultimate flexibility to do whatever I want (with proper planning, of course).

I've begun brainstorming on how buildings will be handled in the game (there are some interesting considerations I'll post about later). Before I plan out the software architecture in detail, however, I think I'll make a couple of super simple games in Godot just to familiarize myself with the engine.

[Pr0m4NV14 837]

Would a better name be Eraquestria? It kinda rolls off the thong better.

[e^2 5]

Good to see that you are alive! I was wondering where you were. Looking forward to your idea of buildings!

[AdventLegacy 3]

It seems to me that all of Blender's features have a steep learning curve. But once you master one, the results can be quite amazing. After many hours of figuring out how to properly sculpt and how to model hair, I present my first iteration of a generic mare model:

I know... the mane is an absolute mess right now. There are too many spikes anyways, so I'll be redoing it. I plan on making several hair styles, actually. I'm very pleased with the body shape, but there are way more vertices than necessary (2775 not including the hair). I will create a new model, carefully placing as few vertices as possible and using this model as a guide. I'll also arrange the vertices a little more strategically and avoid concentrations of nodes or situations where one node is connected to many others. I'll take the opportunity to fix up the ear and smooth out the muzzle, too.

But before I do any of that, I'm debating whether I should model the eyeballs or just "paint" eyes onto the model. The perfectionist in me wants to be able to animate the character's eyes and make them blink. I believe there may be ways to warp or even animate a UV map to accomplish this. If not, then I want to model the eyes.

At this point I could already make a bone system and create some basic animations (walk and run, for example). The current model has the right proportions. I want to make sure I can properly import the model and its skeleton animations into Godot before I do a bunch of remodeling, so expect some animations in the next update!

And one last word of good news: school is out, so I will definitely be spending more time on this project.

 

[e^2 5]

Good to see you again!

That mare is... quite good for first iteration, in my opinion. I'm sure there are 3D modelling folks on these forums that can give you more feedback and better tips that I ever will.

Congrats on completing this school period. I finished my undergraudate recently. Looking forward to seeing progress.

You've mentioned that you had some ideas on how building will be handled earlier. How is that going?

[AdventLegacy 3]

On 4/29/2018 at 8:30 AM, Pr0m4NV14 said:

Would a better name be Eraquestria?

Considering how the game no longer involves advancing from one era to the next, I suppose I might change the name completely. But until then, Eraquestria sounds good to me! It is indeed easier to say.

 

21 hours ago, e^2 said:

You've mentioned that you had some ideas on how building will be handled earlier. How is that going?

I'm a fan of component-based programming in game design. In component-based programming, you start with a blank game object and add prefabricated scripts to it to give it features (such as the ability to move). Using that pattern in Godot is tricky because only 1 script can be attached to any given node. Some forums suggest that you can just add scripts to child nodes and use get_parent() to access and affect the parent node. I haven't gotten that to work yet, but I'm sure it's possible and I'm just missing something simple. I would like to use a component-based approach to all the game objects (units, buildings, trees, animals, etc.) in Eraquestria. Here's my initial thought on how to break the essential functions down into individual scripts:

Structure Script:
    gives the object a gridWidth and a gridLength so it can occupy space on the grid that underlies the map.

Unit script:
    gives the object a position and a radius so it can occupy a small area of real space (as opposed to "grid space" which is discretized).

Moveable script:
    The object can be moved in real space.
    A game object must have a Unit script in order to have a Moveable script.
    Includes a bitmask to determine which players are in control of the unit. A bit for "nature" is included in the mask; nature units such as birds and timber wolves will be controlled by a special AI player.
    A "Flyable" script extends Moveable. Flyable game objects can lift off the ground and change their movement behavior. They do not block buildings from being constructed under them.

Damageable Script:
    gives the object health and optionally shields. It can take damage and be repaired/healed.

Selectable Script:
    Allows the object to be selected. When a game object is selected, information about it is displayed in an "InfoPanel" UI at the bottom of the screen, and actions available for that object are presented in an "ActionPanel," such as attack, move, train unit X, etc. This script will need to detect the presence of other scripts on the object, such as Moveable, while also determining which unique actions should be displayed for that type of game object. Perhaps I could add an "Action" script to the building for each action that can be performed. I worry that arranging and displaying these actions on the ActionPanel might be a little inflexible (like, what if I want a dropdown menu or scrollbar instead of a simple button?).

Resource Script:
    Imparts a resource type and count on the object, allowing it to be harvested by workers/villagers (peasants?).

To create a building, I would start with a generic game object and give it a Structure script, Damageable script, and Selectable script. To create a unit instead, I would give it a Unit script, Moveable script, Damageable script, and Selectable script. To create a typical resource, I would give it Structure, Selectable, and Resource scripts. Once this architecture is in place, the idea is that I'll be able to compose many different types of units and buildings quickly and with minimal individualized programming effort.

There are many, many other details to consider regarding buildings:

1. I need to detect whether a unit is blocking the place where the player wants to place a building. I'd like to avoid either looping through all units or having every unit find its position on the grid during each game tick and setting an "occupied" boolean or something. There's got to be a more efficient solution...

2. It should be possible for a unit to stand in certain tiles that are occupied by a building. For example, units should be able to walk over farms, and I would also like to provide "channels" for newly-created units to move around so that production buildings can't be boxed in by mistake with other buildings. I think this should be possible using colliders that are sized slightly smaller than the grid. On the other hand, maybe I *do* want buildings to be useful for blocking enemies and keeping them out.

3. If a unit is hidden behind a building, an outline of that unit should be visible to the player. This is another one where an efficient solution isn't obvious to me.

4. I want the player to be able to build walls like in Age of Empires. The display of the wall segment will need to update according to which tiles around it are also occupied by wall segments. I also want to somehow detect breaches in the wall and alert the player to them. Maybe I could maintain a "coloring" of the grid, wherein each closed region is assigned a different color. If the coloring changes significantly after a wall segment is destroyed by enemy fire, then I'll know that the wall was probably breached. The player can display this coloring when they click on a wall segment so they can tell whether their wall is complete or if they're missing a segment somewhere. Friendly peasants should not open a hole in the wall by chopping trees.

5. Buildings should take some time to construct. While under construction, actions available to the building are limited. I would like for static defenses to begin shooting arrows or whatnot *before* they are 100% completed, however. I've lost all my villagers after reaching 98% constructed on a castle one too many times. Grr....

6. Buildings can be destroyed or deleted. When this happens, a few manager scripts need to be updated: A script for managing prerequisites (like, building A must be built before building B), a script that is responsible for recording stats during the game so they can be displayed at the end (showing how many buildings you destroyed and lost, for example), a script for managing the grid, and a script for managing the minimap. There may be other lists that need to be updated as well. I need to come up with a robust way of dealing with game object deletion. Additionally, I'll need to distinguish between various *types* of deletion (destroyed by enemy, deleted by player intentionally, destroyed by friendly fire, destroyed by nature, etc). The Damageable script should probably handle all this deletion overhead.

7. If buildings can be disabled, this may impact the software architecture too. I don't have any current plans for disableable buildings, however.

8. When a building is selected, the active hotkeys should change to reflect the actions that are available for that building. The Selectable script will likely be involved, along with some sort of keyboard input manager script.

9. The map will have a varied terrain. When a building is placed, should the terrain under the new building be flattened?

10. I'm considering having flying buildings (e.g. cloud buildings). Should they be placed on their own, second grid? To be honest, though, I'm leaning against flying buildings because it might make it annoying to finish off an opponent.

11. Production buildings should maintain a queue of units in production. The player can remove units from the queue

12. Buildings need to be informed of research upgrades that affect them, such as increased hp for buildings, increased unit production rate, unlocked units, etc. Some sort of upgrade manager script is needed, and I could use an "Observer" coding pattern in which every new building registers itself to the upgrade manager to be informed of new upgrades (and catch up on the old ones).

Wow... that ended up being a much longer post than I expected. There's a lot to consider when you write it all down. Is there anything big you think I might have missed? I'd like to identify as many software requirements as possible before I finish planning out the architecture and begin coding.

In the meantime, I promised an animation in the next update, so here's my first attempt at a running cycle for the mare model:

It could definitely use some refinement; I'll fix it up later (also, it seems there's a duplicate frame in this gif, causing the animation to pause at the end. oh well.) I successfully loaded the model and animation into Godot, so I'm feeling more confident about this workflow. I also experimented with something called "bone attachments" that should let me add and remove armor (and maybe hair too) from the ponies at runtime.

Edited May 18, 2018 by AdventLegacy
Added a twelfth building feature that I forgot to mention earlier.

[e^2 5]

Goodness me. I was expecting ideas for buildings in a game design viewpoint. Not going into the nitty gritty of how the programming functions correlates to how the structures function at a fundamental, base level. No complaints. It was a great read and shows how intricate coding can be for something as simple as buildings, spending resources, and how the problems can add up for even the most mundane things.

2.  In Starcraft Brood War, there is a term called Sim-City, in which buildings are used for more than the fundamental purpose, being used as walls or obstacles for the enemy forces due to their size and sheer quantity of health. You'd have to arrange the buildings well and be careful with it, but this is a way players have and do use buildings in order to block enemies and keeping them out as you have said.

https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Sim-City

https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Protoss_Fast_Expand_Forge_Walling

https://liquipedia.net/starcraft/Walling_as_Terran

4. I don't know too much about Age of Empires but I do recall playing it a couple times. Perhaps I should look into it again.

I do know that Red Alert 2 has walls. They aren't the fanciest thing on the planet but it prevents ground units from moving through it indiscriminately but can be destroyed by explosive damage or heavy forms of damage.

http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Fortress_Walls_(Red_Alert_2)

5. That's... actually quite an interesting idea. Limited functionality when a structure hits certain milestones in its construction process.

6. Can you sell a building to get a refund for a fraction of the cost? Would that also factor into the complexity of the destruction code?

8. Please make the hotkeys reasonable and easy to hit haha. In Brood War, the default hotkey to build certain stuff is "P".

9. I think having it flattened should be the criteria for buildable terrain. There are factions in RTS games that has another condition on top of having the raw terrain itself being buildable. In Red Alert 2, structures must be placed in close enough proximity to the Construction Yard. In Starcraft, Protoss buildings must be placed in a Pylon power field (except the Nexus and Pylons) and Zerg can only build on Creep.

10. Terrans have flying buildings, which is definitely a strength. Melee units cannot strike buildings that are airborne. That being said, the buildings are extremely slow when flying in the air and cannot serve their function (e.g. Barracks cannot produce Marines) when lifted off until they are placed on the ground.

Sorry that I'm mentioning Starcraft a lot. It's the RTS I'm most familiar with not to mention its longevity and esports success over the years.

I'm not a coding guru but there might be something about buildings that you might want to consider and that is how they are built. For the Terrans, the SCV must be with the building for the entirety of its construction. During the construction, the SCV moves back and forth on the construction site, pausing only to have the SCV perform the welding animation on the structure in progress. Protoss buildings construct on their own and the worker is free to do other things. Zerg buildings also construct on their own but the Drone, the Zerg worker, morphs into the building, sacrificing the Drone to make the structure. Not sure how much systems like this would complicate the coding if you choose to implement it but just in case, I wanted to mention it.

If two buildings are placed directly next to each other, is that tiny space in between those units passable? How will the overall collision of the buildings work? There are building arrangements in Brood War that allow small units to pass but large units cannot.

------------------------------

The model can use refinement, yes. But that looks fantastic if it is your first time. I'm not too aware of 3D modelling on Blender. I do music, not animation as far as the arts are concerned.

------------------------------

Have you figured out the factions and the direction you'd want to take the game at a thematic standpoint?

[AdventLegacy 3]

Hello to anyone following this thread. It's been nearly 2 months since I last logged in, and it's become apparent to me that I do not have sufficient time to work on this project. I deeply regret to announce that I'm officially cancelling it.

I hate to let this project go. I had really intended to work on it a lot this summer, but I'm working on several other projects that are quite important to me and this one just keeps getting put on the back burner. There's no realistic way I would finish it in a reasonable amount of time at this rate.

...I feel like I should say more, but I guess that's pretty much it. It's just another classic case of someone biting off more than he could chew. Sorry to dash anyone's hopes for a pony RTS.

Edited July 8, 2018 by AdventLegacy

[Dsiak 4]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:29 AM, AdventLegacy said:

It's just another classic case of someone biting off more than he could chew.

It's stare master all over again
 

Did you consider doing it in the Warcraft 3 engine? You can even import custom graphics and eventually replace everything. War 3 mods might not be too popular nowadays but like this you can focus on the gameplay and balancing before having to worry about the (very) complex inner work of a RTS.

You need to be efficient to manage units without lagging, as in "they have to be aligned in the memory so you don't waste 20ms per frame jumping around to get all of them" and the War 3 engine takes care of these parts all the while getting you familiar with these ideas.

I think Starcraft 2 also have a very good (((open))) editor too, but War3 probably have more documentation.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Dsiak
ops, pressed enter too son