Entitled said:
On the other hand, in either a very stylized tactical game, like chess, or a very realistic battle simulation like the Total War games, you couldn't just list the handful of tactics that players go through, because they are all about emergent gameplay, about the millions of possible paths, and about thinking outside the box, not just about switching between defensive and offensive mode, and similar basic concepts.
Aye, but it still all boils down to this: What is your goal, what are the means available to you, and how far are you willing (and able) to go? Is your steely determination matched by your strategic and tactical mind? Are you able to position your units so as to gain the maximum momentum, the upper hand? Are you willing to sacrifice security and safety (and some of your units) for but a brief moment in the hopes of making a decisive strike that cripples the enemy and/or improves your own odds to achieve victory?
It doesn't really matter, methinks, if we're talking Age of Empires, Warcraft, Starcraft, Total War, Daisenryaku, Battleforge or Chess, as it's always going to be a bit of a rock-paper-scissors approach to things, give or take some. In chess, the basic rules, the knowing about how you are allowed to move the pieces are truly very basic indeed. The concept is a bit twisted/complicated/refined in 'Chinese Chess', but there are reasons chess, as we know it, is pretty much number one. Then, there's GO... oh my god GO.
No matter what game/program/simulation/graph/statistic tool you use, simulation of conflict is always an abstraction of the real thing and, as such, there's always a certain level of simplificiation or standardization, as representations of reality that are not, in fact, reality are always but models.
If you want to push forward, you need the means that allow you to do so. That's usually firepower, inventions, intelligence or the element of surprise.
If you want to hold a position, you cannot always do that no matter what.
Even if you have to retreat, you must try to do so in an orderly fashion, as randomness and chaos almost always mean finding yourself on the receiving end of defeat, death and mayhem.
I guess I won't surprise you, but for the sake of the argument, let me make up my own simplified model of recent warfare to defend my stance why RTS/turn-based strategy games are not that bad. It's going to be rather silly, but I hope I can display how the rock-paper-scissors approach is valid for a number of situations and most ages of human conflict. Mind you that it still is a really simplified model, though. It's hardly ever all about the choice of units, but what you do with them that matters. You can make a decisive strike in chess with but pawns, and you can zerg rush your way to victory. With smart placement (and that bit of luck some people seem to be relying on so much) you can create choke holds and pressure points that put your enemy in a bad place with very little material effort, but they all tend to be rather tight, high-maintenance spots to find yourself in. Despair is always an actor in situations like these, be it in games or in real life situations.
Once upon a time, people invented planes. Planes brought with them significant costs and logistical issues, but they also allowed to bomb things and mow down plenty of enemies on the ground. How did people counter the threat of planes? With anti air balloons, explosives and guns, or pretty quickly with other planes.
Then someone came up with submarines. Ooh, nasty sneaky submarines. How can you fight an enemy you cannot see? Make him visible, by whatever means possible. Once submarines could be detected, the threat could, if not contained, but at least reduced to a manageable level.
The same thing happened when arrows and bows were invented and put to use against other humans. Animals can't adapt as quickly as we do, as their capabilities of solving problems are far inferiour to ours. In a way, a whole lot of our inventions are inspired by nature and animals that have evolved over millions of years, or stayed pretty much the same for millions of years because they were/are just that successful a design. Take cockroaches, for example. If we were as sturdy and resistant as cockroaches, that would rock, right? But who wants to be a cockroach, really? I cannot but adore and admire them, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a cockroach. So we need to keep inventing things to master life, contain the risk of death and defend ourselves against anything and anyone that might want to threaten us.
There are reasons we came up with big ass swords. There are reasons we came up with plate mail armor. There are reasons we abandoned these concepts and moved on. There are reasons we came up with drones not too long ago.
