Slashdot Mirror
Making Strategy Games with...Strategy?
KaB0b0 asks: "Many people I know play primarily RPGs and 'Strategy Games' in their free time (and even sometimes when they're pressed for time). But this arises a question. Is there really any such thing as a 'Strategy Game'? Most of my enemies online seem to think 'build a lot of troops, attack early' is a good strategy for their gaming advantage. In fact, you'd be very hardpressed to find someone who uses actualy tactics in a strategy game." Of course, most RTS games are vastly oversimplified which allows this type of "blitz" game. If games had the concept of supply lines, morale, and other such ignored aspects of battle mechanics, then maybe this would be different. Turn-based strategy games, also suffer from this to an extent, however it's less of a problem there. If you were to create a strategy game with real strategy, what would you implement?
"Take, for instance, StarCraft. The last time I played with someone actually used a strategy besides simply building a lot of medium units and some large units and then sent them all as soon as possible was.. well, never. What could a game developer do in order to insure actual use of strategy in a game intended for it? I realize there's always going to be people who play the game so they can get a good record for some stupid reason, but how can you actually make a game for the real strategist?"
As you've said, most "strategy" games are pretty streamlined, but I firmly believe that's because that is what most gamers want. I find most of the games were you have to keep an eye on what each of your cities is doing (i.e. the Civilization series) to be pretty tedious, and I know a lot more people that agree with me than disagree.
I think there is a small market for the level or realism you are looking for, but such games will never sell as well or be as widely loved as the Warcraft series, regardless of how much more realistic they are.
Spare me your rationalizations. All I know is, stem-cell research kills a quasi-living four-day-old blob.
How about letting you build up a base of AI rules that you invoke while you play? Every human has limits, so there's only so much you can do / invent / control / comprehend during real-time game play, but if you can apply your cleverness ahead of the game then unleash AI hell on your command, that could be cool.
What could a game developer do in order to insure actual use of strategy in a game intended for it?
Require all potential buyers to swear an oath on their mother's grave that they will only play strategically.
Seriously, if you want opponents who use solid strategy, get good opponents.
Even playing a pure strategy game, like Chess, won't force someone to play strategically. An opponent is still free to play randomly -- they just won't win, most likely.
Moreover, mass units in an RTS is a strategy, and a valid one. This is essentially the strategy the US has used in some recent wars (victory through overwhelming force applied quickly to the key locations). What you really want is a game where players use different strategies.
Back to chess -- there is no unit production, so there are no "mass unit" strategies. A game where all players have identical starting units would remove that strategy. But then gameplay might suffer in other ways.
ShoutingMan.com
Practicing good strategy and tactics isn't technically necessary, but someone who makes major strategic errors loses games. Sure, it would be nice if there was a model for supply lines and moving supplies around. I bet Napoleon thought the same thing in Russia.
The real problem is that few, if any, games are actually designed as a test of real time strategic thinking. Most are designed for a quick and bloody romp, thus the hoard mentality.
The control system needs to be changed from DIRECT control over every unit to being able to give tactical commands to individual groups of units.
I am appointing this guy as commander of these troops. Go take that hill.
That guy will have some hidden ratings, moral, courage, smeartz, such as. These will influence what decisions he will make as he tries to comply with your orders. Will he ask for help? Direction? or will he just charge in. This is all left to the AI.
That frees the human gamer to consider tactical as well as strategic goals.
The earliest Squad Leader game was like this to some extent, and not too bad either. Harpoon is another example, though to a lesser extent.
One last item of depth to be consider is psychological warfare. That's a tough one and would require a good deal of research to implement.
All in all, you've just come up against the biggest problem in Computer Design period: lowest common denominator.
What sells? that which is popular
What is popular? that which most people like
Who are most people? And what do they want?
I think, if you look carefully around you, you will discover that most people use Windows, and that should tell you all you need to know.
I'm not being sarcastic here or trying to start a flame war. Think about it. What makes windows popular and what is the MOST popular game out there today?
It would be extremely difficult to get a game company to spend the effort and time to develope a game that is a learning experience. That requires the user to put in some serious thought inorder to win. That requires, in short, some effort on the part of the user. That is simply not what the vast majority of people out there want, beer and blood, and damn that thinking crap!
Later . . . . . . WebBug
Strategy is considered the high-level, where the theater-level commanders and above are. Corps-level and below is the tactical level. The Army designates an "Operational" level in between the strategic and tactical levels to cover the gap and any overlap.
Strategy often deals with politics and logistics. For instance, with the current US situation, strategy would be the coalition building effort and the work to coordinate between military commanders from different nations. It would include the decisions about which troops go and how they get there, and how to pay for it all. It would include selecting which weapons to ramp up production on and which to scale back. It would include the overall scope of the mission: build/maintain a multinational coalition, bomb the heck out of military and government installations, go in with ground troops, break the Taliban, install a new government that everyone is happy with (good luck with that).
Tactics is all the details about exactly goes on at the battlefield. Tactics say how many sorties to fly, which specific targets to pick (which ones best support the strategic mission), what type of bombs to use on what, the timing and location of troop insertion, their movements, etc.
Most games aren't going to do true strategy because it is less exciting than a pure tactical level. And when you remove the strategic concerns, resources become less of an issue, and you build a huge army and attack en masse; it's wasteful and unstrategic, but it works (murphy's law of combat: if it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid).
A true "strategy" game would more resemble SimCity than Warcraft.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
...no strategy game uses these elements because they aren't any fun. "Make it realistic" is not the solution to every game design problem. Seriously, how would one implement morale? Have your troops lose the will to fight and ignore your commands? Have units' statistics randomly decline when you're not looking? What about supply lines? A supply line is a pain in the ass to guard when you have the entire military command structure of a good-sized nation; how can you expect a single player to oversee it?
It's unfair to say that if you have a purportedly "strategic game" and people aren't playing it as such, it's just that the players are bad. You need to understand what makes a game strategic.
.sig). I tried focusing the factions in this way, but there wasn't any strategic depth to it. Once I rearranged all the unit powers so they could all defend, attack, and support in different ways, the game became immensely strategic (while retaining its tactical core). I don't think most RTS designers have learned this lesson, however.
The amount of strategy in a game is based on the total branching factor of all strategic decisions the player mades in the course of a game. A strategic decision is any decision the player must make where the optimal choice is not known (and by extension, there are at least two optimal choices). In other words, the amount of strategy in a game is based on the total number of viable options presented to the player throughout the entire game.
It's important that these are options "viable". A lot of games give you a ton of options, but they are so poorly designed that one option is just better than the others. A great example is Starcraft. If you are playing the Zerg, you want to Zerg Rush. There is no other viable option you can take. There may be a few minor "choices" you make in there, but they don't provide any real branching to the game tree. If you win your rush, great. Your opponent will almost definitly win the game, but people play it out just to make sure. If you lose, you have *one* strategic choice to make-- how to recover. There are a few options, but you'll probably lose.
In particular, playing Zerg in Starcraft gives you a "strategy count" of roughly 3. Roughly different options presented to you. Is this the fault of the player? Hell no! The designers did give the player choices, but some of those choices were just so much more likely to win the game.
Compare this with chess, where you have 50-100 (even more?) viable starting openings. And that's just for the first 3-7 moves! Or the Go, which has an even higher branching factor.
The key to designing good strategic games is *not* giving the player choices! It's giving the player *viable* choices. Every time the player has an option, there should be sufficient motivation to choose either options, even for experienced players. I haven't really found an RTS game that can pull this off that well. That's why they're not really "Real Time Strategy" games. They are "Real Time Tactical" games, because all of your choices are tiny tactical decisions like how and where to attack. RTS games are 75% tactics and 25% strategy. If you want to have more strategy in the game, you have to have less focused sides. It's pretty clear the Starcraft Zergs were designed as "the early rush team", and that just nullified all strategic choices.
The fact is, EVERY team needs to rush. EVERY team needs to defend. EVERY team needs to have a late assault force. You can't vary the teams by making them good at these different things. You need the teams to approach these challenges in different ways, so players still have the choices of 'rush/defend/assault'.
I learned this lesson the hard way, when designing an RTS/FPS hybrid mod for Quake 3 called "Art of War" (Link in
-Ted
Brute force is fine in a game but what about a real war - you can't just throw man and machine at the enemy without a real cost. Games don't reflect this. I remember playing a game of Starcraft vs a friend, and that's how I won - just wave after wave of expendable troops and machines. Later, I wondered about those "lives". They should have complained or rebeled over these suicide missions and the people back at HQ would have balked as well. It would be a nice feature, in a game like Starcraft, where there was some balance between the sacrifice of war and the need for intelligent command. Kind of like the difference between WW2 and the current war on terrorism. Back then it was OK to fire-bomb/nuke cities into oblivion, killing 10's of thousands a day, where today, we fret over every life lost (on our side at least)
First, I hope you get modded up for a good response.
I also agree that RTS would often be better labeled RTT (tactics), as you say.
While it's true that players must be given the gameplay tools with which to create interesting (and effective) strategies, it is also up to the players to utilize what is there. I think that Starcraft offers more strategic depth than you say. A Zerg Rush can be countered; likewise a foiled rusher can come back to win the game. There are a few interesting tactics and strategies for each race that can be used to win the game. No, it's not chess, but there are viable options.
I think a big part of the problem is that rushes and such are easy. They are pure twitch factor, easily done by hyperkinetic 12 year olds, and don't require as much strategic thinking.
I think it's the same argument as with the camping debate in FPS games. Many people view camping as evil, cheating and slimey and seek to eliminate it as a gameplay option. Others view it as a valid strategy, allow by the game. I say, if you don't like campers, then don't play with them. Find more interesting opponents. Likewise, if you want more varied RTS play, find more interesting opponents.
ShoutingMan.com
Kohan is a RTS that advances the genre in the "strategy" department. How so?
Yes, I'm a fanboy for Kohan - I encourage all to check it out, that is, if you've ever enjoyed Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Warcraft, etc. ... I had been burned out on the RTS genre until I played this game.
AZspot