The ideal will be a multi-stage game initially focusing on multiplayer with the following gamemode below. Behind these modes is a whole storyline that has been written but would be hard to execute on in the early stages.

There isn't necessarily a large wide spread audience for this type of game, but it is apparently large enough for Rebellion to purchase the rights to Battle Zone and do graphical upgrades across several of the games.

It should generally appeal to players of tactical shooters of other types & maybe to some extent RTS players.

Standard death match mode, primarily intended as a simple enough mode to implement for testing the first person shooter mechanics of the game.

On the lobby, players select their starting vehicle from the entire roster of the game and a map to duke it out on. Round ends either at a timer or if the kill cap is reached. Winner of the game is whoever has the most kills cumulatively.

This mode goes by the same name as it is in BattleZone 98 / Redux. It is intended as the primary game mode in multiplayer.

On the lobby, players select their faction, team numbers & associations, start points and finally starting vehicle (from any of the considered valid starting vehicles). Round ends either at a timer or if all hostilities (ie. only one set of teams all friendly are left).

This mode will have to answer several design questions that Battle Zone has failed to answer, listed below.

These two genres are fundamentally at odds with each other.

First person shooter wants you personally involved in the action, as the “hero”. Typically all of the complexity of the game is in the equipment selection, character selection, customization and the actual mechanics of engagement.

However, RTS is more standing back and ordering the cannon fodder to do the dirty work. This is further reinforced by the large amount of units typically operating by the end of a match.

They are at odds because FPS emphasizes individual performance while RTS emphasizes overall group cohesive performance. Further, there is a cognitive overhead in both approaches individually that may be too much for many to deal with simultaneously should both be fully fleshed out. This cognitive overhead combined with the active erosion of individual performance may encourage players to primarily play from the RTS overhead view.

Battle Zone tried to solve this by artificially limiting access to the RTS overhead view and forced you to command units from the first person perspective primarily.

Resource collection, the economy, is a key component of anything with RTS mechanics. In Battle Zone, you use scrap which comes from your starting pool, scrap fields that are finite, and most notably, recovered from destroyed units in the field.

Collection from destroyed units encourages players to push less as all lost units are reinforcing the enemy's economy. You are, in essence, delivering scrap to the enemy's doorstep.

This isn't in itself necessarily a problem, but it is a crucial part of the design considerations.

Battle Zone also has a secondary resource, pilots, that are literal bodies needed to operate the vehicles you construct. It is possible to raise this number through the construction of the Barracks at your base but can otherwise be used to set a unit cap.

The AI in the game should be satisfying to fight while still easily controllable by the commander. In Battle Zone, the AI was much more in line with the typical RTS units where there is little to no logic running which results in very boring behaviors from the first person perspective. This combined with overall low range weapons that often feel the same (but with varying stats) contributes towards a lackluster first person experience.