Im prototyping a RTS similar to Amigas "Megalomania": mega-lo-mania

Each player/AI controls a group of people fighting for control of sectors in a grid. Each sector can house a town/castle which generates resources and trains soldiers.

Now: the combat.
This is where I need some tips. Combat is very basic. Like in Mega-lo-mania you control which sector your soldier moves to but not the individual troops themselves. If enemies exists in the same sector they will "fight" by swarming around each other damaging each other. How can this be done more interesting/interactive? See pic below. You enter a sector from either left or right. Defenders swarm in the middle.

The troop type selection for now might give you a clue on the style:
Peasants: Need no infrastructure to be trained but are very weak
Spearmen: Middle ground unit needing wood.
Swordmen: Late tech and strong. Expensive, needs gold.
Archer: Late tech. High damage but very weak once friendly melee troops are dead. Stays at a distance and shoots arrows
Catapults: Late, expensive. Only attacks castles/defensive towers.

Any ideas or suggestions?
Thanks a lot!
Erik

The easiest way to make this interesting would be to implement some rock-paper-scissor mechanics. For instance, if swarms of peasants are really good against archers, while the heavy infantry can survive a hit from a catapult etc, you need to really think about your combination of units instead of having only a simple numbers game. 

As a second, more work approach, implement some skills you can trigger that are very timing critical to keep players on their toes, for instance a slowing field laid down by archers or invulnerability for your heavies.

Hope this helps.

41 minutes ago, Daymaredev said:

The easiest way to make this interesting would be to implement some rock-paper-scissor mechanics. For instance, if swarms of peasants are really good against archers, while the heavy infantry can survive a hit from a catapult etc, you need to really think about your combination of units instead of having only a simple numbers game. 

 

As a second, more work approach, implement some skills you can trigger that are very timing critical to keep players on their toes, for instance a slowing field laid down by archers or invulnerability for your heavies.

Hope this helps.

Agreed. Really, just about every strategy game involves rock-paper-scissors on the basic level.

I was actually just playing some total war an hour ago, and especially in Shogun, the general idea is that sword > spear (even though history disagrees) spear > cavalry, cavalry > swordsmen and then other variables like flanking and unit XP can sway the battle. Fire Emblem also uses this system. Even in StarCraft, upgraded units > basic, etc.

It looks like you've got a really simple system, and it looks like this is intentional.  Until you get to the late tech, it's basically all peasants and spearmen.  There's no room for rock-paper-scissor with just these two unit types.  There are lots of ways of adding depth to the system, but they pretty much all involve adding complexity.  For example:

• You could add more unit types.  Tons of options there; I'm not even going to try to list them.
• You could add the concept of hunger and supply wagons.  Supply wagons move more slowly than soldiers, so you can move more quickly by moving your soldiers without the supply wagons, but the longer the soldiers are away from the supply wagons, the weaker they get.  Also, supply wagons are vulnerable targets that can be attacked if the soldiers are elsewhere.
• You can add the concept of giving soldiers high-level orders, e.g. fight aggressively, fight defensively, hold ground, orderly retreat, run!, pursue the enemy, take out the archers.
• You can let individual soldiers level up, which increases their effectiveness but also makes you try harder to keep them alive.
• You can give different unit types different bonuses based on terrain types, e.g. archers are more effective in rough terrain.
• You can add a system where you can give temporary or permanent bonuses to particular soldiers.

On the other hand, if you want to keep it simple, then you can make it more interesting by making it more interesting to look at.  That means lots of interesting animations.  Let your units actually choose strategies and implement them instead of just walking up to the enemy and attacking.  Let units randomly go berserk.  Let units panic when they are outnumbered.  Let panicked units retreat and regroup.

This is all good input thanks. And more is always welcomed:)

For this type of strategy game a part of the fun is balancing combat strength and power against cost.  Your list includes some of that, but it doesn't seem well defined.

You mention "tech", you mention units having costs, you mentions melee and range.  Those are part of the balance.

It is generally good to have a mix of strengths and weaknesses, with the relative values depending on the cost of the unit.  This gives the player the ability to create strategy.  A good strategy game allows a skilled player to come up and win under difficult positions if they can exploit strategic weaknesses.

You've started with five types, but you've not really figured out strengths and weaknesses.  You'll want to start figuring them out with something like this:

Peasants: Strength - cheap, quick to train, probably can build things.  Weakness - very low defense stats, low offense stats.

Spearmen: Strength - Spears are extremely strong against cavalry, pikes in the ground slow incoming opponents. Weaknesses - Low defense stats.

Swordsmen: Strength - High defense stats, high melee damage stats. Weakness - High cost, slower due to armor, requires technology.

Archer: Strength - Ranged damage. Potentially agile/fast unit. Weakness - very low defense, possibly as low as peasants. Requires technology.

Catapults: Strengths - Very high ranged damage, possibly splash damage. Weakness - Extremely slow to move, slow to fire and reload, extremely low defense against melee, cost.

When you've figured out all the strengths and weaknesses, you've got to figure out approximate power and cost ratios.  How many of X should be able to defeat a Y?   Generally if two have equal cost the strategic value should be equal.  That is, of a light infantry costs the same as a basic archer, then if you put an archer versus an infantry the archer has a chance to kill the infantry as they approach, but if they reach it the infantry can quickly overcome the archer, making it about a 50/50 since they cost the same.  Paying a higher cost like an archer digging in or embedding in a tower makes the archer more powerful, paying a higher cost like better shields reduce the risk to the infantry from inbound arrows.

Every character type should have some weakness that can be exploited. 

In real life navies, consider how aircraft carrier groups are configured.  There is generally an aircraft carrier that is quite weak and slow and serves as a hub but has very low offensive or defense capabilities in itself; several airplane wings that are maneuverable and can do a wide range of damage but have limited range and few individual weapons; 1-4 cruisers with guided missiles that can handle large distant surface targets; 1-6 destroyers with anti-submarine and anti-aircraft capability, 1-4 submarines to counter other submarines and other ships, and can sacrifice secrecy to launch missiles; fuel and supply ships and other vessels for logistics and maintenance and mission needs.  

Note how each ship has weaknesses and strengths.  On their own each ship can be overcome by others. Subs are easily destroyed by destroyers and by air-dropped armaments. Cruisers are vulnerable at close range. Destroyers are vulnerable at long range. Aircraft are weak and easily overcome by nearly anything, but extremely mobile and versatile. When they are working as a group they are strategically solid.

Similarly in the Star Wars universe, a Death Star can destroy entire planets, has high power long-range defenses, and carry over a million military personnel, but could be overcome by weak points from small ships. Their fleets generally include a collection of craft each with a different mix of offensive and defensive capabilities.

You also asked about making it interesting.  That's harder.

You need an incentive to get players moving as quickly as possible. The opening moves are critical, and a player who stalls up front will have more difficulty later.  

You've got to have increasing entropy.  In some other games the contest is about balance and reducing entropy, encouraging the loser to come from behind, such as cart racing games giving high-power bonuses to last-place players and weak rewards to those in first place. In RTS games the goal is increasing entropy. You want the end to be explosive, even when one side is completely overpowered.  That generally means the end game is decided by enormously powerful battle fleets in games like Starcraft, or by fully-leveled characters in LoL that can do enormous damage with every hit. 

And you've got to have a chance for players to win from behind.  This generally means the win condition (or loss condition) is not defined by the accumulation of power.  Consider sometimes in League of Legends where a team can strategically distract their opponents into major battles and conflict, and even though they are weak they win the objective by opening a hole for their minions.  The "winion" strategy works amazingly well if you can distract the opponent.

If you can see other strategic openings depending on the game it can be enough. In the old Command and Conquer games, if you knew where the target was you could focus on building a huge fleet of aircraft. All the defenses would be fired at the first few airplanes, so a set of 8+ aircraft flying directly to the construction target could destroy most players. A Zerg Rush feels like a dirty trick but wins the game. And of course, all it takes is one incredibly lucky X-Wing to take down a Death Star.  The trick in strategy is to find and exploit strategic weaknesses, while building up your own layers of strategic defense.