A topic already brought up but…
A Real Time Stratagy GZ would be epic.
But how would it Play?
Please elaborate what exactly you mean
I cannot not answer, sorry 
This one was the topic you were refering to:
I don’t know how to further explain my idea.
I just have a “company of heroes 2”-like graphics and gameplay in my mind.
As the resistance you could produce defensive structures and even small bases at specific points.
You could also “produce” resistance-soldiers, but you have just a low cap for doing that.
The soldiers may be like hero-units, gain experience and may upgrade their abilities or weapons. Basic weapons can be bought or taken at weapon stacks and better weapons can be dropped by destroyed machines.
But they must be careful, as they are still weak targets for the machines, but they benefit from cover and attacking from different directions.
For more speed for exploration of the regions or for fleeing you can find bicycles or mopeds.
With upgraded production capabilities you even get the ability to produce motorbikes.
The more territory/locations/regions you clear and hold, the higher your unit cap becomes.
Basic weapons could have unlimited ammo. Better weapons (for specialisation) need ammo, which you can find or craft.
More ideas may come… But for the moment I really can imagine this kind of game.
Sorry but honestly it would be boring guys.
Unless 20 new types of machines appear and the entire NATO, Swedish and Soviet units are available.
If its just 6 or 7 types of machines and a few humans fighthing them its super boring.
To better understand it go play (or see videos) from Command and Conquer series, Wargame series, Supremme Commander, and then you will see the scope of what i mean.
Its almost as bad of an idea as making an FPS shooter from a Sonic game or a driving game from a Dark souls game.
1 Like
There are so many different types of real time strategy games… And you don’t always need dozens of unit-types and hundreds of units on a battlefield to have a great strategic game. Vice versa.
Strategic depth can be produced by quite less than just more and more units. To be true, pure mass makes no strategy in my eyes.
Your counter examples are in my eyes really bad chosen. Of course you’re right with them. But regarding war games you almost always have the possibility to make either a strategy game or a shooter in their universes.
There are star wars games for almost all kinds of games: racer, card-games, rts, fps, tps, strategy games, rpg,… Just to mention some.
And even of a classic strategy game like command & conquer there is a famous shooter (renegade). Now take this and turn it vice versa and you’ll see, that it is possible.
Like Halo Wars as rts for the fps Halo.
It’s just a matter of how you do it. And that’s the simple question LAPSUS asked for.
Edit:
One thing I must admit:
I have no clue if and how it would be possible to make fnix or soviets as playable factions (for multiplayer). On the other hand, they are controlled by AI, why should they be playable factions? Instead there could be different human factions. The Iron church for example. Or maybe the swedish army and the soviets, before the AI took over and killed all humen soldiers.
Halo was originally going to be a mac-only RTS until Microsoft bought bungie.
You are a “pain in the ass” .
I responded based on your Simple RTS game ideas (like not mentioning new units and factions, and WAR RTS games dont usually have survival mechanics, those who do usually suck, its true check the statistics and data).
Star wars and Halo have everything to do with strategy, massive battles are taking place at any time.
And i mentioned how it could be implemented here, “various factions and units to choose from”.
You edit part does not make sense, have you even played many Rts at all?
You are not making any sense at all, Any faction can be used by AI or Human and it would not make sense for them to not appear, at least Fnix, Soviets, Resistance and NATO.
Now off course every faction needs units and buildings to counter or match other units " Ex you need an anti air unit to face aerial threats, an heavy unit to take other heavy units, an even bigger unit to take all units, superweapons, stealth units, transport units for logistics…this implies new machines have to be created and other units made for the other Factions.
Each faction would need something between 10 to 20 different units, or it would be a very boring RTS (played some with few units and building types and it just does not feel right).
This looks like a rant so i wont push it further.
1 Like
offtopic
No, long before microsoft bought bungie halo was announced as cooperative first/third person shooter for pc only. The presented material before microsoft bought bungie was the halo I once wanted to have.
Microsoft bought bungie and redesigned the whole game just to make a working launch titel for the first xbox out of it. I was so disappointed.
1 Like
Please don’t become offending.
Oh yes, I’ve played almost every much promising rts between 1995 and 2014 (when I got my PS4 and my bureau changed to my 1 year old sons room.)
I even was a well known modder (in the cnchq-community) of C&C3 Tiberium Wars until about 2013.
The most important in strategy games is, that you have a good balancing between the factions.
You don’t need to have many different similar units for each class in each faction. (not every faction needs aircraft, or heavy units for example). You don’t even need super weapons, although some should be possible (artillery strike for fnix, large emp for resistance, reinforcement drop for soviets).
I agree that you need a “rock, paper, scissors” system, but this could be reached on many ways.
And I didn’t say that there shouldn’t be additional units or structures or that there should be survival mechanics (which even aren’t really there in GZ).
We just have to make some sensible ideas of what could be added and how the factions could look like.
Then we need some kind of ressources, which of course could be (partially) different for each faction as they have different needs.
And I really think that Company of Heroes 2 could be a good basement for a GZ rts.
Let the idea live, don’t burry it just because you don’t like it.
2 Likes
PC only? Far from it.
It was originally unveiled in 1999 at Macworld by Steve Jobs running exclusively on Macintosh as a successor to the Mac only Marathon series.
offtopic
Ok, sorry, you’re right, just found these articles, too. But back in 1999, mac was nothing I was interested in. I just remember the first reports in gamestar magazine talking about a much promising cooperative game for pc… And that microsoft destroyed most of its “unique” features later, just to make a xbox game out of it.
But that’s not the topic…
1 Like
I was thinking this as well, it’s fitting for micro and mid macro style game play.
I wonder tho, if you built the RTS from the perspective of FNIX starting with the take over of Ost, like a tutorial. Then you would be going up against Swedish tanks and soldiers who at first would be unaware.
I think it would be cool to make it tactical with the FNIX having at the start low class machines and ambush tactics, building up to what the current story is now.
There is plenty of story from the remains of battle in the current game, you could make a number of scenarios and then building up to Russia invading. It would be like playing out the Apocalypse itself.
This is not all tho, FNIX can have a tech tree to build experience for, since there are as many class of machine as there are machines and weapon types.
What do you think of this thought?
1 Like
I would not go to RTS, more like xcom style. RNG based maps, whole globe, underdog situation where resistance raises.
Just an idea. 
1 Like
Could be interesting, too.
Roundbased tactical strategy game.
The tactical depth would be even greater, but I fear (never played xcom-series seriously) the action and speed of Generation Zero could get lost. Maybe you could make an own topic with more details how it could look and feel like.
1 Like
I don’t know if you have played Faces of War/Men of War but something like that would perfectly fit imo, fully destructible environment, detailed damage models and a direct control element for a single unit, together with ammo and resource management and also taking verticality into account.
I don’t think a classic base building RTS would fit the setting, as this kinda defeats the point of the resistance. That being said, we’re already superhuman warriors that can just tank 50cal salvoes and just derstroy towering machines in a couple of seconds, so might as well.
1 Like