Halo as FPS -- AND -- RTS

Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.

We are seeing some games with different 'classes', not all super-soldier
types: medics who are needed to heal, engineers who are needed to set
explosives, etc. So in my version of "Halo RTS" you get on-line and pick a
'campaign'. A campaign will be a series of battles on a pre-determined map.
Somehow 'units' for each campaign will be determined. A unit will be a
collection of soldiers and vehicles: a squadron of banshees, scorpions, or
ghost-supported infantry for example.

When you sign on to the campaign you pick whether you want to be a
'general', 'soldier', or even both. The general will be able to move his
units across the terrain -- thus the RTS portion -- to take control of
strategic locations depending on the main objectives of the campaign. For
example, you could use your scorpion unit to secure a strategic bridge (king
of the hill), or send your infantry in to blow up a fuel depot (assault), or
even execute a SAR (Search And Rescue) of a valuable prisoner (capture the
flag). The soldier could be of specific classes if you like (sniper,
scorpion driver, etc.).

Once one or more of the general's units need to go into battle against enemy
units, that hex becomes a 'map' like coagulation, mid-ship, etc. The
servers go 'recruit' soldiers for the battle on that map, much like
matchmaking in the playlists. So if you sign on as a soldier you'll have
access to all the battles that are seeking recruits. You can sign on based
on the type of unit you want to be a part of: banshees, scorpions, a sniper
unit, etc, or by the map. One cool aspect is you won't necessarily know
what you're going up against, just the unit you'll be in. You could be way
outmatched but defending a high-value prisoner, or you could be in a
scorpion unit assaulting an infantry position -- it depends on how good your
general was in moving units across the terrain.

If the general wants to jump into one of the battles he just set-up, then
he'll be able to no problem. Each 'turn' of the RTS portion could have a
time limit and if enough soldiers can't be found for all the battles needed
that turn then the server can roll the dice in the background to determine
the outcome, just like today's RTS games, so there's no loss there. But of
course when enough soldiers are found, we now have a great mix of RTS and
FPS elements; both working together, both skills needed to complete the
campaign. Each battle would take between 5 and 15 minutes like today's
Halo2 battles, so the RTS portion could still move along fairly quickly;
also helped by the fact that the servers can recruit for multiple battles
going on simultaneously across the board, and units not involved with a
battle can still be moved across the board to other strategic objectives.
Bots could be used for un-filled slots in the unit or even for quitters.

And "Halo RTS" will add a sense of reality to RTS games because the outcomes
of each battle won't just be dice rolls -- they'll be played out by real
soldiers. If you wanted to throw some light Roll Playing elements in you
could do so easily by keeping 'rankings' like today's Halo2 Playlists, and
as you gain ranks you can level up your character's skills, or cross train.
Also, battles can be composed of similarly ranked soldiers, just like
today's playlists.

Time for bed, and time for "Halo RTS". Thank you for your time.

In alt.games.video.xbox A Man, Just Like Other Men <Nada2Spam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Gamespot had a 'rumor control' article addressing some rumored discussions
> of adding Real Time Strategy elements to the Halo universe. My mind was
> working tonight while trying to sleep so I thought I'd type out some
> thoughts on just how this could work and be very cool, especially on-line.

RTS's traditionally consist mainly of building your forces and the
infrastructure (buildings, economy) to support them. What you describe
below is basically a more elaborate team-based FPS - not that that would
be a bad thing, mind you, I just wonder about the logistics of having
enough players to actually play a decent game.

Traditional RTS games haven't done well on consoles since their
controllers aren't really suited to that sort of game. Besides, to make
it more interesting you'd need to have more than just 2 different
races/armies represented... A 2 sided RTS is so C&C.