No Sense of Strategy in Strategy Games

[Naeras]

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?

I'm saying that out of the strategy-tactics-execution-trinity of competitive games, tactics is the one that comes into play the latest of the three. Execution and strategy are far more important until you have those two down, then tactics eventually starts to matter as well. This is universal for the genre. Even in CoH, a game with heavy emphasis on tactics, suffers from this. In my years as a replay reviewer on the largest community site for the game, if I see a game from someone relatively new, it's almost always the unit composition, or lack thereof, that lost them the game.

Firstly, what you've just described is covered under military tactics. From my earlier post:

Military tactics, the science and art of organizing a military force, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.

In other words, choosing and using the various units in Starcraft 2 to their fullest ability. Know what units counter what etc.

No, that's strategy. Planning out which units to use and produce depending on your opponent isn't tactics. Utilizing those units would be tactics. It's no different from the way units are produced in, say, Total War. The strategic and the tactical parts of that series is completely separated, though, but if you had to build buildings, and produce units from them, in real time in TW, would that be less strategic than having a pre-deployed force you built on the map? No. Of course not.

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.

Except that up until diamond league, you don't need to micro at all. If your macro and game sense is solid enough, you can literally make your way up to diamond by getting the correct unit composition, attack moving with that, and following it up by building more units and expanding behind it.

And no, I'm not exaggerating here [http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/f7e8j/seriously_guys_if_youre_in_platinum_or_below_your/]. Micro and tactical maneuvering isn't important before you've spent 50+ hours on the game(probably more). Before that, it's higher level decisionmaking(i.e. strategy) and executions that matter, because that single engagement where you get to apply tactics will be won because you had five times more stalkers and a better economy than your opponent.

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.

How many times do I need to repeat myself here? It's not a goddamn war, it's a game. The definition of game strategy is what applies here, not the definition of military strategy. The match being played is the only frame of reference that you have, and the highest level of priority is winning that game, or "the war". It's your overarching plan for the match and the higher level decisions that you make in the game that make out the strategy in a game, while tactics apply to how you apply that plan on a lower level, i.e. once you have your units and need to use them.
You should read the entire wikipedia article you linked to on tactics, which actually supports my point.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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?

I'm saying that out of the strategy-tactics-execution-trinity of competitive games, tactics is the one that comes into play the latest of the three. Execution and strategy are far more important until you have those two down, then tactics eventually starts to matter as well. This is universal for the genre. Even in CoH, a game with heavy emphasis on tactics, suffers from this. In my years as a replay reviewer on the largest community site for the game, if I see a game from someone relatively new, it's almost always the unit composition, or lack thereof, that lost them the game.

Firstly, what you've just described is covered under military tactics. From my earlier post:

Military tactics, the science and art of organizing a military force, are the techniques for using weapons or military units in combination for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.

In other words, choosing and using the various units in Starcraft 2 to their fullest ability. Know what units counter what etc.

No, that's strategy. Planning out which units to use and produce depending on your opponent isn't tactics. Utilizing those units would be tactics. It's no different from the way units are produced in, say, Total War. The strategic and the tactical parts of that series is completely separated, though, but if you had to build buildings, and produce units from them, in real time in TW, would that be less strategic than having a pre-deployed force you built on the map? No. Of course not.

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.

Except that up until diamond league, you don't need to micro at all. If your macro and game sense is solid enough, you can literally make your way up to diamond by getting the correct unit composition, attack moving with that, and following it up by building more units and expanding behind it.

I guess where we diverge in our opinions then, is less what we believe tactics and strategy are, but where and how they're applied in different scales.

And no, I'm not exaggerating here [http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/f7e8j/seriously_guys_if_youre_in_platinum_or_below_your/]. Micro and tactical maneuvering isn't important before you've spent 50+ hours on the game(probably more). Before that, it's higher level decisionmaking(i.e. strategy) and executions that matter, because that single engagement where you get to apply tactics will be won because you had five times more stalkers and a better economy than your opponent.

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.

How many times do I need to repeat myself here? It's not a goddamn war, it's a game. The definition of game strategy is what applies here, not the definition of military strategy. The match being played is the only frame of reference that you have, and the highest level of priority is winning that game, or "the war". It's your overarching plan for the match and the higher level decisions that you make in the game that make out the strategy in a game, while tactics apply to how you apply that plan on a lower level, i.e. once you have your units and need to use them.
You should read the entire wikipedia article you linked to on tactics, which actually supports my point.

>Plays RTS games which challenge the player to create solutions for military situations
>Still thinks military ideas don't apply

The "strategy" you use in the game is military in nature. You are controlling military units to achieve military goals.

 

[maxmanrules]

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.

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.

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.

I'm almost certain that there's some really terrible FPS that had COH as a trademark. And I mean really terrible.
Anyway, to sequeldom!

 

[hydroblitz]

I apologize if this has been suggested already, but Dawn of War 2 is a good one because it doesn't let you build a very big army. A lot of strategy goes into it.

 

[beastro]

Quick note:

Tactics : The art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy.

Strategy : The art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle.

Basically, strategy is on paper, and usually created before conflict. Tactics are the actually execution of the strategy and changing it based on changing conditions on the battlefield. The old adage, "No plan survives contact with the enemy" refers to the need to be able to deviate from a preconceived strategy and rely on tactics if necessary.

Anyway, got that out of my system.

My personal favorite RTS games are the Total War games (particularly rome) and Company of Heroes.

This.

In Empire ETW, strategy is to seize Gibratler, Morocco or Spain to block access of the open ocean to Mediterranean powers or for those same powers to protect themselves from being blocked. Capturing Malta for a power outside of the Mediterranean can greatly help them attack powers in the sea because it acts as a forward base to launch land and sea attacks from as well as being a refuge for your units in the region.

For a classic Civ strategy, it would be founding a city on an isthmus regardless of it's productivity to create a canal and allow your nations naval units to have easy access to two oceans blocked by a very long continent.

 

[Karfroogle]

I play both kinds of strategy and I'm the same way with RTS. I don't know why, but I just prefer to do whatever I feel like doing over winning. I'm however, not a competitive gamer in any sense besides messing around with friends.

 

[Fisher321]

Company of Heroes!!!!!

 

[Tsaba]

Men of War, good luck rushing a MG or mass tanks and try to rush well placed AT.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

This is why I favor the total war games. Positioning, type of units, experience of units along with the skill of the general all factor in how a battle goes. Only a few units are capable of holding out for an extended period when outflanked and even less will fight to the death if they have an avenue of escape(this is why completely surrounding the enemy is a bad idea).

In more recent games, it's less about unique unit compositions than it is about using them correctly. Shogun 2, for instance, has a counter mechanic where sword beats spear, spear beats cav, and cav beats sword. Naginata is kind of an all-rounder and missile units are useless in melee but effective against lightly armored infantry and fairly effective against cavalry provided they don't have the skill to dodge volleys.

I do disagree with some of the OP though. High level play in Starcraft 2 that I've seen requires great skill in micromanagment of units in a battle. Good micro tends to get you the most out of your units, though the right death ball usually does the trick in all but the highest level of play.

I can also recommend Men of War, based on what I've heard and Company of Heroes on personal experience. Ruse was interesting based on the demo I played, but it never seemed to get much beyond research better infantry and ambush any armor you find... till your enemy made artillery and beat the hell out of your position.

 

[Phaederuss]

Most RTSes seem to amount to, build up as many units as you can, zerg zerg zerg. I don't know, I don't really play multiplayer so maybe it's different...?

 

[axlryder]

Uhhh, I have nothing good to add to this thread, but I suppose Valkyria Chronicles has SOME tactical elements in it. I mean, the A.I. is generally a crapshoot (I've won purely based on enemy incompetence), and the most tactical element is perhaps planning for inevitable surprises in later scenarios, which is really only effective on your first time playing a mission and if you aren't a reload whore. Beyond that it's more just identifying the most efficient way to kill your enemies/capturing their base, while deploying your troops in a way that minimizes risk and utilizing orders when it's appropriate. At "higher levels of play" this often comes down to one or two units nimbly infiltrating the enemy base and capturing it without much fuss (which is where the "tactical" elements really break down). Though I'd say that's fun in its own right. Given that you're never dealing with very many units on limited maps, variables the game throws in are more like obvious gimmicks that involve (yes/no) choices or clearly preferable courses of action than actual strategic factors, and much of one's success can come down to accuracy/evasion. Overall, a fun game, with light tactical elements. Of course, refusing to allow any of my units to die probably amplifies that just a bit (they all have individual personalities and such). I'd say it requires at least some forethought, so it's not an utterly mindless experiences. Probably no better, if not worse, than the games you were complaining about in your OP. It definitely employs those rock/paper/scissors style unit types. I'd call it breezy, but battles can go on for a little while, so it involves a degree of time dedication.

Oh yeah, don't play it if you hate the mawkish sentimentality displayed in a lot of anime. The story and characters still manage to be saccharine and rudimentary in their execution, despite dealing with some genuinely heavy themes.