Lately I've noticed the following statement in a growing number of previews and reviews of current games (in this case by games we mean "Real Time Strategy Games" Don't get me started about that name.). "The combat follows the traditional Rock-Paper-Scissors formula, creating blah blah blah..." That's about enough of that.
So let me understand then. You've built your system based upon an artificial interaction of x is better than y is better than z is better than x. And I'm supposed to be excited by this? For how long then? Is that why you're spending so much time making it look good? So I'll be distracted when I realize all you've done is put a fancy GUI on a game play mechanic as old as the hills?
You know who you are.1
Hey Chris has a good idea. How about you create a simulation. Seeing as we're now building multi-processor rigs with the same juice as early super computers, how about the units having more axis' of definition than 'beats archers'. How about we make the real time tactical game depend on tactics. With the amount of beefy hardware available at bargain basement prices these days, why aren't you making the interactions between units more complex?
Things that are still mostly missing - variable sensing, multi role platforms, fuel, ammunition, morale, unit training, positional damage, variable accuracy, weather. We've seen a bit of some of these, limitedly, but how about all of them in one giant package? How about a damage system complex enough to allow for variance in ammunition type and quality.
Look it's not that rock-paper-scissors does not or can't work. It is that when we have the horse power to do so much more, I'm no longer satisfied with rolling a d6 to see who gets a higher result.
1. Actually you probably are not reading this, so you may not. Your loss, not mine.