No Sense of Strategy in Strategy Games
- Thread starter wookiee777
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem with treating most MP RTS as strategy games is they only really start becoming strategy games for the handful of top players. Everyone else just struggles to master playing a basic mechanical game based on strategies they copy from them.
And single player games have a problem in term of being either very narrow and proscriptive in terms of strategies you can use or having brain dead AI.
I actually think that this is a huge challenge for the people who make computer strategy games so I'm cautious about just saying that x or y game does it right because maybe the game that really does it right hasn't been made yet. But if you like risk then play more games like that on the computer I guess.
And single player games have a problem in term of being either very narrow and proscriptive in terms of strategies you can use or having brain dead AI.
I actually think that this is a huge challenge for the people who make computer strategy games so I'm cautious about just saying that x or y game does it right because maybe the game that really does it right hasn't been made yet. But if you like risk then play more games like that on the computer I guess.
Well, strategy isn't really the key thing in those. They're something like ping pong in electronic form. There's room for different plays but if you can't mechanically perform it's not much of a game.More Fun To Compute said:
There are a lot of proper strategy games but they're a bit of a niche. Don't expect AAA products. For one interesting example you could check Balance of Power. I think it's free nowadays.
CoH is an extremely good strategy and tactics game. Lots of tiny flanking movements going on. And room for a variety of strategies. Fast tank push. Psychological warfare with heavy infantry for ambushing. Mechanized infantry to ride into the enemy base with missile launchers to drop as many buildings as you can. Early pio/engi flamethrower push? Or do you go for a jeep/motorcycle push with engineers to repair?
When properly applied there's plenty of strategies that work. The munitions resource tends to even any unbalanced unit matches when properly applied. Infantry weak against tanks? Get some panzerschrecks. Fast cars and half tracks avoiding and outrunning your infantry? Place some mines in strategic locations. Enemy massing up too many infantry? Force a retreat to their HQ and then time a v2 missile launch to hit and kill them all. Or you know, grenades as well.
When properly applied there's plenty of strategies that work. The munitions resource tends to even any unbalanced unit matches when properly applied. Infantry weak against tanks? Get some panzerschrecks. Fast cars and half tracks avoiding and outrunning your infantry? Place some mines in strategic locations. Enemy massing up too many infantry? Force a retreat to their HQ and then time a v2 missile launch to hit and kill them all. Or you know, grenades as well.
Well since you said you would be willing to look outside the usual genres of RTS and TBS then you could always try a MOBA, I would recommend LoL.
When you start out in may not seem like much but once you get better and get into higher levels of play then it becomes pretty strategic. That said it's multiplayer only and you are really reliant on getting good teamates, the community is also one of the worst in gaming.
When you start out in may not seem like much but once you get better and get into higher levels of play then it becomes pretty strategic. That said it's multiplayer only and you are really reliant on getting good teamates, the community is also one of the worst in gaming.
You're confusing the terms "military strategy" and "strategy" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy].SL33TBL1ND said:
Your overarching plan and strategic decisions, and technical execution of the build you choose, is what decides most games before you (and your opponents) actually get really good at them and understand when and how you should be picking engagements and using your units properly in conjunction. Before that, the most important thing in an RTS is almost always your build order and how many units you're capable of producing(i.e. strategy and execution).
Unless, of course, you're playing single player, in which case none of the elements really apply since you're just spamming zerglings and attack moving them towards something, or building a million defense structures to defend the sacred artifact for 30 minutes. Which, incidentally, is why you don't play single player RTS.
Battle for Wesnoth (FREEEEEE)
Frozen Synapse
The Total War games. (there's a whole bunch, I've spent many an afternoon playing Shogun:Total War(the original one))
Company of Heroes can be quite good if you get into enough to get skillful and get both the expansion packs. Set that shit on the hardest difficulty and have a fun hour or so duking it out with a half dozen AI, or palyers from around the world.
Frozen Synapse
The Total War games. (there's a whole bunch, I've spent many an afternoon playing Shogun:Total War(the original one))
Company of Heroes can be quite good if you get into enough to get skillful and get both the expansion packs. Set that shit on the hardest difficulty and have a fun hour or so duking it out with a half dozen AI, or palyers from around the world.
Did you know it's not actually CoH? That's Call of Honour, or some other terrible FPS. CofH is the proper one apparently. Kinda weird, but yeah.Mycroft Holmes said:
On a second, and less retarded note, THAT GAME IS SOOO GOOOOD. I always preferred to entrench the living sod out of strategic points while my allies ran around killing things. I'd just wait patiently with my corp of engineers and giant howitzers until the enemy tried to mount an assault, then I'd blow them to pieces by dropping artillery on their heads while they get pinned down with machineguns and anti-tank guns. Sure, they can launch their own artillery strikes, then they go up against my SECOND line of defense. Such a good game...
Which is why strategy is generally not involved, but tactics. You are using various tactics to win a particular battle. RTS games are set in military situations, that's why the tiers of tactics, operational and military strategy are more applicable than the general term.Naeras said:
Again, RTSes are games, not military simulations. You're applying game strategy, not military strategy. You've got a set of starting options that you expand upon depending on your overall game plan in terms of how to spend time and resources. These are strategical factors, and this is what decides the vast majority of the games in an RTS, because how smartly and how effectively you spend those resources will be more important than the battles themselves. When the actual fighting starts, the game is usually already decided. The exception is if either the game is very even, in which case tactics actually start to matter, or if it's a very tactical RTS(like Company of Heroes).SL33TBL1ND said:
Please explain how tactics are more important than strategy and execution for the regular player in StarCraft 2. Deciding how to approach engagements will for most players not matter. The amount of units, and type of units you decided to build in what order, will be the big factor most games. None of these things have much to do with tactics.
Google says Call of Honour is not a thing. Did you mean City Of Heroes? Which is the only other abbreviation for CoH in gaming I've seen. Anyways I've never seen anyone use CoH to refer to anything other than Company of Heroes, So I'm sticking to my guns on that.maxmanrules said:
But agreed on everything else. It's easily the best RTS I've ever played and here's hoping the sequel will be as great.
These are military scenarios within games.Naeras said:
So what you're saying here is that unless both opponents are of an equal skill level, the one who's better is going to win?
Firstly, what you've just described is covered under military tactics. From my earlier post:
In other words, choosing and using the various units in Starcraft 2 to their fullest ability. Know what units counter what etc.
Secondly, considering the micro-heavy nature of Starcraft 2, a large chunk of that game is about manoeuvring your units quickly and efficiently on a small scale to surround a chunk of your opponent's units, ie. a tactical manoeuvrer.
Unless your sense of scale is off and you're counting each individual engagement as a battle and the match itself as a war (which I would say is preposterous) tactics are more readily used.
Dawn of War 2 definitely requires strategy, It is all about counter attacks and choosing what points on the map are worth defending or if limited resources should be spent on building an army instead.
Its small scale compared to most strategy games but it is a challenge.
Its small scale compared to most strategy games but it is a challenge.
I refuse to play risk. I swear, those dice hate me and the best strategy doesnt help if i keep rolling low numbers.Tuesday Night Fever said:Goddamn Risk. Talk about a great game to make you absolutely despise the guts of your closest friends. We used to play games that would last full weeks... full weeks in which no one would so much as talk to each other. Good times.wookiee777 said:
Anywho, yeah, I tend to agree with you. Though I admit I've been finding the strategy genre somewhat lacking in strategy for a real long time now. I still find it fun, don't get me wrong... but yeah.
Granted, I tend to play the sort of RTS games where this-
-is the most common type of strategy.
Most games that fit into the RTS or RTT genre's actually do have strategic elements; what they lack is a tactical element. Strategic choices common in such games include build orders, expansion base placement, and organization. In most games where people complain about the lack of some element, it usually is in the form of "all you do is build units - when the fighting starts, there isn't much you can do to affect the outcome".
Unless such games are fundamentally broken, usually this is because the games rely largely on strategic planning rather than tactical command. Those games that do have tactical elements tend to be focused on a relatively small number of units so players can actually focus on efficient and effective maneuver. To use Dawn of War 2 for example, choosing to build banshees early in T1 is a strategic choice. Maximizing on that choice tends to involve using flanking maneuvers to get the fragile banshees into range where their swords work best - a tactical problem.
Unless such games are fundamentally broken, usually this is because the games rely largely on strategic planning rather than tactical command. Those games that do have tactical elements tend to be focused on a relatively small number of units so players can actually focus on efficient and effective maneuver. To use Dawn of War 2 for example, choosing to build banshees early in T1 is a strategic choice. Maximizing on that choice tends to involve using flanking maneuvers to get the fragile banshees into range where their swords work best - a tactical problem.