Also, Galactic Civilizations combat system wasn't well implemented due to being RPS oriented.
There was nothing RPS about galciv, ever. Brad referred to it as RPS in interviews but he is wrong, it isn't RPS. It has 3 weapon types but having 3 types does not make it RPS. That seems to be your mistake (the reason I say YOUR mistake is because I EXPLICITLY STATED what I meant in the "how to implement" section).
Lasers, missiles, and mass drivers all do damage to HP, lasers is resisted by shields, missiles by chaff, and mass drivers by armor. THAT IS NOT RPS.
RPS would be where you can build laser ships, missile ships, and mass driver ships. And where mass drivers does extra damage to missile and less damage to laser. Missiles do extra damage to laser and less to ME, and laser does extra damage to ME and less to missile. (for example).
You ite exciting games like "rome total war", just FYI those games are actual RPS... In age of empires it was archer beats pikemen, pikemen beat horsemen, horsemen beat archer.
In Rome total war you had (according to wikipedia) units that are " which may be broadly categorised into infantry, cavalry, archers, and artillery units. Each unit has optimal styles of use, opposing units against which it is vulnerable or effective"
In Total War
games (at least Rome: Total War
), some soldier types are more effective against others. For instance, archers are good against heavy infantry, because they'll shoot from afar and automatically run away when the enemy gets close, and they can outrun heavy infantry (being lightly armored). But cavalry are good against archers, because the archers get only a few shots in before they have to switch to melee weapons (which they do have, but usually only weak ones, and not much armor). And so on.
- Justified to some extent in that they usually don't get any bonus stats by fighting specific units, it's just the way they interact. The only exception is the "effective against armour" trait that certain missile units and axe-wielding infantry have.
- However, this trope completely dominates TW multiplayer. There are strict rules as to which factions you should use to defeat certain other factions, based on their selection of units and those units' particular strengths. The particulars of this go somewhat beyond a simple rock-paper-scissors scheme, but the effect is the same - only a certain army selection using a certain deployment and certain tactics will guarantee victory against an experienced player using a given faction.
THAT IS ROCK PAPER SCISSORS! This is what I am suggesting. Thats a "mixed unit tactics" type RPS were it isn't an absolute thing but just more / less damage such that ideally you want to hit the enemy with what they are weak against. But can still overwhelm a small troop with a large army ieven if it is weak against.
A massive army of nothing but cavalry or infanty or archers can win... but it will be disadvantaged. You want all three and applying each to the enemy unit it is strong against.
Currenlty FE is 3 different and uncorrolated methods of doing HP damage, JUST LIKE GALCIV! I am suggesting the change to be like total war.
Mages beats army which beats melee heroes who beat mages.
Mages = Archers
Army = Infantry
Melee heroes = Cavelry