https://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Lindir+The+GreenSpring - User contributions [en]2026-11-09T02:57:33ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.43.11https://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18344Theory On Strategy2007-01-24T15:13:52Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Micro in an RTS */</p>
<hr />
<div>Disclamer: This page is almost entirely the opinion of Lindir The Green. It is '''not''' meant to be considered fact; it is merely my analysis of Strategy, particularly how it relates to the genre of the RTS. Take it or leave it.<br />
<br />
I appreciate merciless editing, but please don't change the ''meaning'' of anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective without a prior learning phase.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable. The game will turn into a stalemate as no creativity or effort is required with so few effective choices.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "multiplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and significant "multiplayer" strategy, though this value seems to increase with an increase in the number of participants.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are very different from other games. They require creativity above all, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. Multiplayer strategy enters in at the most impossible moments, and the rules theoretically can change at any time. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to these tentative rules.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest video game genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement in real-time strategy games, which I call "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micromanagement is comprised of small scale activities and maneuvers, sometimes of a r/p/s nature. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. According to general opinion, some "tactical" micromanagement in a game is a good component of balanced play, with the perfect amount varying depending on the player.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement consists of the multitude of little tasks that require little to no intellect or forethought to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires manual skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but it doesn't really provide options for strategy.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement isn't neccesarily bad though. Arcade games consist almost entirely of it, and, while there is little strategy in its execution, it requires strategy to decide how much of it to use.<br />
<br />
Starcraft uses large amounts of both types of micro, TA uses much less "pointless micro", and it seems like Supreme Commander will use very little of either. <br />
<br />
The interesting about the Spring engine is that it offers (as of now) unparalleled flexibility in exactly how much micro to use, because so much can be delegated to an AI, freeing up the player for large scale multiplayer strategy. It's always a tradeoff which level of control to do different things off, which adds yet another dimension to gameplay.<br />
<br />
== Gameplay and Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
A Real Time Strategy game, or Spring mod, is comprised mostly out of units that players build. What determines the balance and much of the gameplay is when exactly specific units should be build.<br />
<br />
The only time that a mod definitely is '''not''' balanced is when there is never any reason to build a certain unit; if another unit or group of units would always be "better" for a player to build. The huge variety of maps and specific conditions that occur make achieving an unbalanced game difficult. It is also important to remember though the effects of player perception. Even a completely useless unit on paper could be the best thing to build if it is considered useful by players, or to decieve the oponent about the extent of a player's experience or abilities. Which makes the number of unbalanced mods approach 0.<br />
<br />
However, even a balanced mod can be no fun to play, which is where the real act of balancing comes in. And it is generally a good idea to ensure that any unit could be the best thing to build in a significant proportion of situations.<br />
<br />
While there may always be a "best" unit to build, since the information (and processing speed) of a player is restricted, there are usually several good units to build at any given time. How many depends on the mod.<br />
<br />
A mod is usually less fun to play, and called imbalanced, if at any given time there are very few best units to build. This is why there is so much criticism of mods/games where a certain build order is neccesary to even have a chance. It requires much "Normal" strategy to figure out what that build order is... But very little "Multiplayer" strategy once the optimal build order is know.<br />
<br />
While more options generally allow for a mod to have more opportunities for "Multiplayer" strategy, options also increase the learning curve, and too many options can decrease the importance of "Multiplayer" strategy, by "watering it down," and making individual choices less risky.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18343Theory On Strategy2007-01-24T15:13:21Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Gameplay and Balance in an RTS */</p>
<hr />
<div>Disclamer: This page is almost entirely the opinion of Lindir The Green. It is '''not''' meant to be considered fact; it is merely my analysis of Strategy, particularly how it relates to the genre of the RTS. Take it or leave it.<br />
<br />
I appreciate merciless editing, but please don't change the ''meaning'' of anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective without a prior learning phase.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable. The game will turn into a stalemate as no creativity or effort is required with so few effective choices.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "multiplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and significant "multiplayer" strategy, though this value seems to increase with an increase in the number of participants.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are very different from other games. They require creativity above all, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. Multiplayer strategy enters in at the most impossible moments, and the rules theoretically can change at any time. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to these tentative rules.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest video game genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement in real-time strategy games, which I call "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micromanagement is comprised of small scale activities and maneuvers, sometimes of a r/p/s nature. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. According to general opinion, some "tactical" micromanagement in a game is a good component of balanced play, with the perfect amount varying depending on the player.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement consists of the multitude of little tasks that require little to no intellect or forethought to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires manual skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but it doesn't really provide options for strategy.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement isn't neccesarily bad though. Arcade games consist almost entirely of it, and, while there is little strategy in its execution, it requires strategy to decide how much of it to use.<br />
<br />
Starcraft uses large amounts of both types of micro, TA uses much less "pointless micro", and it seems like Supreme Commander will use very little of either. <br />
<br />
The interesting about the Spring engine is that it offers (as of now) unparalleled flexibility in exactly how much micro you use, because so much can be delegated to an AI, freeing up the player for large scale multiplayer strategy. It's always a tradeoff which level of control to do different things off, which adds yet another dimension to gameplay.<br />
<br />
== Gameplay and Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
A Real Time Strategy game, or Spring mod, is comprised mostly out of units that players build. What determines the balance and much of the gameplay is when exactly specific units should be build.<br />
<br />
The only time that a mod definitely is '''not''' balanced is when there is never any reason to build a certain unit; if another unit or group of units would always be "better" for a player to build. The huge variety of maps and specific conditions that occur make achieving an unbalanced game difficult. It is also important to remember though the effects of player perception. Even a completely useless unit on paper could be the best thing to build if it is considered useful by players, or to decieve the oponent about the extent of a player's experience or abilities. Which makes the number of unbalanced mods approach 0.<br />
<br />
However, even a balanced mod can be no fun to play, which is where the real act of balancing comes in. And it is generally a good idea to ensure that any unit could be the best thing to build in a significant proportion of situations.<br />
<br />
While there may always be a "best" unit to build, since the information (and processing speed) of a player is restricted, there are usually several good units to build at any given time. How many depends on the mod.<br />
<br />
A mod is usually less fun to play, and called imbalanced, if at any given time there are very few best units to build. This is why there is so much criticism of mods/games where a certain build order is neccesary to even have a chance. It requires much "Normal" strategy to figure out what that build order is... But very little "Multiplayer" strategy once the optimal build order is know.<br />
<br />
While more options generally allow for a mod to have more opportunities for "Multiplayer" strategy, options also increase the learning curve, and too many options can decrease the importance of "Multiplayer" strategy, by "watering it down," and making individual choices less risky.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18342Theory On Strategy2007-01-24T15:11:14Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Gameplay and Balance in an RTS */</p>
<hr />
<div>Disclamer: This page is almost entirely the opinion of Lindir The Green. It is '''not''' meant to be considered fact; it is merely my analysis of Strategy, particularly how it relates to the genre of the RTS. Take it or leave it.<br />
<br />
I appreciate merciless editing, but please don't change the ''meaning'' of anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective without a prior learning phase.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable. The game will turn into a stalemate as no creativity or effort is required with so few effective choices.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "multiplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and significant "multiplayer" strategy, though this value seems to increase with an increase in the number of participants.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are very different from other games. They require creativity above all, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. Multiplayer strategy enters in at the most impossible moments, and the rules theoretically can change at any time. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to these tentative rules.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest video game genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement in real-time strategy games, which I call "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micromanagement is comprised of small scale activities and maneuvers, sometimes of a r/p/s nature. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. According to general opinion, some "tactical" micromanagement in a game is a good component of balanced play, with the perfect amount varying depending on the player.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement consists of the multitude of little tasks that require little to no intellect or forethought to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires manual skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but it doesn't really provide options for strategy.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement isn't neccesarily bad though. Arcade games consist almost entirely of it, and, while there is little strategy in its execution, it requires strategy to decide how much of it to use.<br />
<br />
Starcraft uses large amounts of both types of micro, TA uses much less "pointless micro", and it seems like Supreme Commander will use very little of either. <br />
<br />
The interesting about the Spring engine is that it offers (as of now) unparalleled flexibility in exactly how much micro you use, because so much can be delegated to an AI, freeing up the player for large scale multiplayer strategy. It's always a tradeoff which level of control to do different things off, which adds yet another dimension to gameplay.<br />
<br />
== Gameplay and Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
A Real Time Strategy game, or Spring mod, is comprised mostly out of units that players build. What determines the balance and much of the gameplay is when exactly specific units should be build.<br />
<br />
The only time that a mod definitely is '''not''' balanced is when there is never any reason to build a certain unit; if another unit or group of units would always be "better" for a player to build. The huge variety of maps and specific conditions that occur make achieving an unbalanced game difficult, but definitely not impossible. It is important to remember though the effects of player perception. Even a completely useless unit on paper could be the best thing to build if it is considered useful by players, or to decieve the oponent about the extent of a player's experience or abilities. Which makes the number of unbalanced mods approach 0.<br />
<br />
However, even a balanced mod can be no fun to play, which is where the real act of balancing comes in. And it is generally a good idea to ensure that any unit could be the best thing to build in a significant proportion of situations.<br />
<br />
While there may always be a "best" unit to build, since the information (and processing speed) of a player is restricted, there are usually several good units to build at any given time. How many depends on the mod.<br />
<br />
A mod is usually less fun to play, and called imbalanced, if at any given time there are very few best units to build. This is why there is so much criticism of mods/games where a certain build order is neccesary to even have a chance. It requires much "Normal" strategy to figure out what that build order is... But very little "Multiplayer" strategy once the optimal build order is know.<br />
<br />
While more options generally allow for a mod to have more opportunities for "Multiplayer" strategy, options also increase the learning curve, and too many options can decrease the importance of "Multiplayer" strategy, by "watering it down," and making individual choices less risky.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18341Theory On Strategy2007-01-24T02:36:16Z<p>Lindir The Green: Finally got that last section done... But nowhere near as much as I have in right brain, evading articulation.</p>
<hr />
<div>Disclamer: This page is almost entirely the opinion of Lindir The Green. It is '''not''' meant to be considered fact; it is merely my analysis of Strategy, particularly how it relates to the genre of the RTS. Take it or leave it.<br />
<br />
I appreciate merciless editing, but please don't change the ''meaning'' of anything.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective without a prior learning phase.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable. The game will turn into a stalemate as no creativity or effort is required with so few effective choices.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "multiplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and significant "multiplayer" strategy, though this value seems to increase with an increase in the number of participants.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are very different from other games. They require creativity above all, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. Multiplayer strategy enters in at the most impossible moments, and the rules theoretically can change at any time. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to these tentative rules.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest video game genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement in real-time strategy games, which I call "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micromanagement is comprised of small scale activities and maneuvers, sometimes of a r/p/s nature. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. According to general opinion, some "tactical" micromanagement in a game is a good component of balanced play, with the perfect amount varying depending on the player.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement consists of the multitude of little tasks that require little to no intellect or forethought to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires manual skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but it doesn't really provide options for strategy.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement isn't neccesarily bad though. Arcade games consist almost entirely of it, and, while there is little strategy in its execution, it requires strategy to decide how much of it to use.<br />
<br />
Starcraft uses large amounts of both types of micro, TA uses much less "pointless micro", and it seems like Supreme Commander will use very little of either. <br />
<br />
The interesting about the Spring engine is that it offers (as of now) unparalleled flexibility in exactly how much micro you use, because so much can be delegated to an AI, freeing up the player for large scale multiplayer strategy. It's always a tradeoff which level of control to do different things off, which adds yet another dimension to gameplay.<br />
<br />
== Gameplay and Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
A Real Time Strategy game, or Spring mod, is comprised mostly out of units that players build. What determines the balance and much of the gameplay is when exactly specific units should be build.<br />
<br />
The only time that a mod definitely is '''not''' balanced is when there is never any reason to build a certain unit; if another unit or group of units would always be "better" for a player to build. The huge variety of maps and specific conditions that occur make achieving an unbalanced game difficult, but definitely not impossible. It is important to remember though the effects of player perception. Even a completely useless unit on paper could be the best thing to build if it is considered useful by players, or to decieve the oponent about the extent of a player's experience or abilities. Which makes the number of unbalanced mods approach 0.<br />
<br />
However, even a balanced mod can be no fun to play, which is where the real act of balancing comes in. And it is generally a good idea to ensure that any unit could be the best thing to build in a significant proportion of situations.<br />
<br />
While there may always be a "best" unit to build, since the information (and processing speed) of a player is restricted, there are usually several good units to build at any given time. How many depends on the mod.<br />
<br />
A mod is usually less fun to play, and called imbalanced, if at any given time there are very few best units to build. This is why there is so much criticism of mods/games where a certain build order is neccesary to even have a chance. It requires much "Normal" strategy to figure out what that build order is... But very little "Multiplayer" strategy once the optimal build order is know.<br />
<br />
While more options generally allow for a mod to have more opportunities for "Multiplayer" strategy, options also increase the learning curve, and too many options can decrease the importance of "Multiplayer" strategy, by "watering it down," and making individual ones less risky.<br />
<br />
Note: BA/AA have large amounts of units, but '''IMO''' few that can be built at a given time, which '''IMO''' decreases multiplayer strategy. This is in contrast to XTA, which has less units, but '''IMO''' more options, yet still they remain un-watered down. '''IMO'''.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18340Theory On Strategy2006-12-07T03:01:58Z<p>Lindir The Green: Completely rewriting Balance in an RTS</p>
<hr />
<div>Mostly by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective without a prior learning phase.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable. The game will turn into a stalemate as no creativity or effort is required with so few effective choices.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "multiplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and significant "multiplayer" strategy, though this value seems to increase with an increase in the number of participants.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are very different from other games. They require creativity above all, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. Multiplayer strategy enters in at the most impossible moments, and the rules theoretically can change at any time. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to these tentative rules.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest video game genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement in real-time strategy games: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micromanagement is comprised of small scale activities and maneuvers, sometimes of a r/p/s nature. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. According to general opinion, "tactical" micromanagement in a game is a good component of balanced play.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micromanagement consists of the multitude of little tasks that require little to no intellect or forethought to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires manual skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micromanagement. Logically, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micromanagement for a better overall play experience.<br />
<br />
Side Note: It seems like Supreme Commander will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
In an RTS, there are many units with hard coded abilities. Balancing an RTS is the act of deciding exactly which abilities the units should have, to make a game that the creator and/or target market finds the most enjoyable to play.<br />
<br />
For a unit to be worth having in a game, it must be the best choice to build at some point in any game on any map. Because of the huge differences in different maps and different specific games, theoretically ANY unit could be worth building at some time, as long as it isn't surpassed in EVERY way by another unit.<br />
<br />
[More later... I had a revelation while pacing around a table]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Features&diff=7429Features2006-08-11T19:22:50Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Current Features */</p>
<hr />
<div>====Current Features====<br />
* Large [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/screenshots.php battles] limited only by the power of your computer; support for up to 5000 units.<br />
* Large, highly detailed [[maps]] in which to wage those battles, fully 3D with deformable terrain, forest fires, dynamic and reflective water, and custom skyboxes.<br />
* Several camera modes, allowing for anything to be viewed from almost any angle.<br />
* Fully 3D combat in land, sea, and air, with realistic weapon trajectories.<br />
* Many different [[mods]], some of them originally from Total Annihilation, and some made just for Spring.<br />
* Compatible with unit files from Total Annihilation, allowing 3rd party units to easily be moved into Spring.<br />
* Complex 3rd party [[AIs]], some of which are quite good.<br />
* An extremely powerful GUI, designed to minimise unneccesary micromanagement.<br />
* Frequent additions and bugfixes.<br />
<br />
====Currently in Development====<br />
* New, nicer GUI.<br />
* New scripting engine.<br />
* Platform-Independent Lobby Client.<br />
* Many different [[maps]], [[mods]], and [[AIs]].<br />
<br />
====Other plans not on any roadmap====<br />
* [[Monthly Topic Rotation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Content]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18333Theory On Strategy2006-07-10T01:18:46Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Going advanced at a certain time in a certain game */</p>
<hr />
<div>Mostly by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are different though. They mostly require creativity, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to the rule.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMO, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
In an RTS, there are an almost infinite number of possible situations, and possible strategies. Balancing the RTS is the act of trying to get all of those strategies to work together and create the best game.<br />
<br />
Every strategy has several characteristics:<br />
<br />
*the strategies that it performs well against.<br />
*the strategies that it performs poorly against.<br />
*the difficulty of pulling it off.<br />
<br />
For anybody to ever use that strategy, there must be some strategy that it performs well against. And the strategy that it performs well against must also be feasable, which means that '''that''' strategy must perform well against a different strategy. But to prevent a strategy from being overpowering, it must perform poorly against some other strategy.<br />
<br />
As long as there are several strategies that fit the above in an RTS, the RTS should hold together.<br />
<br />
But to make an even better RTS, you must pay attention to the difficulty of each strategy. The difficulty of the strategy is almost the same as the amount of micromanagement required to use it.<br />
<br />
Some RTSs have all of the best strategies be the most difficult, and some are the other way around. But as long as a particular strategy is good against another particular feasable strategy, it will probably be utilized at some point, even if it is extremely difficult to pull off.<br />
<br />
The learning curve of an RTS is determined by:<br />
<br />
*the GUI.<br />
*how effective the most difficult strategies are.<br />
*the strategic complexity. That is, how many feasable strategies are there?<br />
<br />
For somebody who completely understands a RTS, the more strategic complexity there is in that game, the more fun it is. But for somebody who does not completely understand how every single strategy fits together (like most of us), more strategic complexity just means less comprehension of what's happening, which usually means less fun. Unless of course you enjoy being confused.<br />
<br />
That is why realism, or pseudorealism, is important in a RTS: To give players an intuitive understanding of how the RTS fits together. It is much easier to understand that some anti-air is useful to carry with the assault force as defense agains air raids than it is to understand that unit A should be grouped with unit B, C, D, G, J , and L when they are doing actions 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4 respectively to prevent against trouble caused by the enemy utilizing units H, I, and N.<br />
<br />
Here are examples strategies and how they fit together in my favorite RTS ever: Total Annihilation.<br />
<br />
=== Porcing ===<br />
<br />
*Good against: Attacking with units which happen to lose to the defenses.<br />
*Bad against: Expansion.<br />
*Difficulty: Very low.<br />
<br />
In TA, porcing is not really a viable strategy. Sorry to shatter reality as you know it.<br />
<br />
Porcing isn't a very good strategy in any current RTS, because if it were then nobody would do anything else. Unless there were a single strategy that worked really well against porcing but really horribly against anything else. But I can't think of anything like that, that would still retain some pseudorealism.<br />
<br />
=== Going advanced at a certain time in a certain game ===<br />
<br />
*Good against: Being defensive at between this certain time and the certain time when the player has made the jump to advanced.<br />
*Bad against: Being agressive at between this certain time and the certain time when the player has made the jump to advanced.<br />
*Difficulty: On the low end.<br />
<br />
Yes, I am using the word strategy extremely loosly, it really sorta means "decisions" or something. But I'm gonna keep calling it strategy.<br />
<br />
more later... I have to analyse a few more strategies</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18332Theory On Strategy2006-07-09T20:31:24Z<p>Lindir The Green: completely changed Balance in an RTS</p>
<hr />
<div>Mostly by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are different though. They mostly require creativity, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to the rule.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMO, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
In an RTS, there are an almost infinite number of possible situations, and possible strategies. Balancing the RTS is the act of trying to get all of those strategies to work together and create the best game.<br />
<br />
Every strategy has several characteristics:<br />
<br />
*the strategies that it performs well against.<br />
*the strategies that it performs poorly against.<br />
*the difficulty of pulling it off.<br />
<br />
For anybody to ever use that strategy, there must be some strategy that it performs well against. And the strategy that it performs well against must also be feasable, which means that '''that''' strategy must perform well against a different strategy. But to prevent a strategy from being overpowering, it must perform poorly against some other strategy.<br />
<br />
As long as there are several strategies that fit the above in an RTS, the RTS should hold together.<br />
<br />
But to make an even better RTS, you must pay attention to the difficulty of each strategy. The difficulty of the strategy is almost the same as the amount of micromanagement required to use it.<br />
<br />
Some RTSs have all of the best strategies be the most difficult, and some are the other way around. But as long as a particular strategy is good against another particular feasable strategy, it will probably be utilized at some point, even if it is extremely difficult to pull off.<br />
<br />
The learning curve of an RTS is determined by:<br />
<br />
*the GUI.<br />
*how effective the most difficult strategies are.<br />
*the strategic complexity. That is, how many feasable strategies are there?<br />
<br />
For somebody who completely understands a RTS, the more strategic complexity there is in that game, the more fun it is. But for somebody who does not completely understand how every single strategy fits together (like most of us), more strategic complexity just means less comprehension of what's happening, which usually means less fun. Unless of course you enjoy being confused.<br />
<br />
That is why realism, or pseudorealism, is important in a RTS: To give players an intuitive understanding of how the RTS fits together. It is much easier to understand that some anti-air is useful to carry with the assault force as defense agains air raids than it is to understand that unit A should be grouped with unit B, C, D, G, J , and L when they are doing actions 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4 respectively to prevent against trouble caused by the enemy utilizing units H, I, and N.<br />
<br />
Here are examples strategies and how they fit together in my favorite RTS ever: Total Annihilation.<br />
<br />
=== Porcing ===<br />
<br />
*Good against: Attacking with units which happen to lose to the defenses.<br />
*Bad against: Expansion.<br />
*Difficulty: Very low.<br />
<br />
In TA, porcing is not really a viable strategy. Sorry to shatter reality as you know it.<br />
<br />
Porcing isn't a very good strategy in any current RTS, because if it were then nobody would do anything else. Unless there were a single strategy that worked really well against porcing but really horribly against anything else. But I can't think of anything like that, that would still retain some pseudorealism.<br />
<br />
=== Going advanced at a certain time in a certain game ===<br />
<br />
*Good against: Being defensive at between this certain time and the certain time when the player has made the jump to advanced.<br />
*Bad against: Being agressive at between this certain time and the certain time when the player has made the jump to advanced.<br />
<br />
Yes, I am using the word strategy extremely loosly, it really sorta means "decisions" or something. But I'm gonna keep calling it strategy.<br />
<br />
more later... I have to analyse a few more strategies</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18331Theory On Strategy2006-07-09T19:46:03Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Basics of Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>Mostly by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills to your advantage.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Roleplaying games are different though. They mostly require creativity, with some "normal" strategy if the players are competitive. But, since there are many different games and many different DMs, there are many exceptions to the rule.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew. This complexity of rules is, of course, secondary only to the complexity in some roleplaying games.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action, a common myth. Action simply places strategy in a time-limited frame.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are often really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMO, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategic depth. TA and most of its mods do not seem to realize this. Each additional unit should add something new, not rehash a prior role.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
However, some maps simply don't support certain types of units... how can there be ships with a lack of water? This of course points to map limitations that shape player strategy.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA, in particular like E&E or a fast-paced game of AA. When the advantage is low, the game plays like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively. However, the superunit might "overkill" the weak units, becoming less useful.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18327Theory On Strategy2006-06-10T21:13:55Z<p>Lindir The Green: Changed the intro --- Again!</p>
<hr />
<div>Mostly by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered down Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMO, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategic depth. TA and most of its mods do not seem to realize this.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively. However, the superunit might "overkill" the weak units, becoming less useful.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18326Theory On Strategy2006-06-09T13:12:59Z<p>Lindir The Green: Fixed a typo</p>
<hr />
<div>Originally by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered down Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMO, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategic depth. TA and most of its mods do not seem to realize this.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively. However, the superunit might "overkill" the weak units, becoming less useful.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18325Theory On Strategy2006-06-09T13:12:01Z<p>Lindir The Green: changed the intro again</p>
<hr />
<div>Originally by Lindir The Green<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered down Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMP, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategic depth. TA and most of its mods do not seem to realize this.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively. However, the superunit might "overkill" the weak units, becoming less useful.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=XTA&diff=19644XTA2006-06-08T00:13:16Z<p>Lindir The Green: changed a sentance</p>
<hr />
<div>xta was a balance mod for [[TA]], developed by the [[SY]] clan.<br />
Its latest TA version was xta0.95.<br />
<br />
For spring, it was the first mod aviable, the first that was ported and is what comes with the installation of the Spring engine ready to play.<br />
<br />
The development of xta has continued for Spring, and current version is 66SE.<br />
Its mantained by people from the [[SY]] clan.<br />
<br />
Development of this mod is now made by Noize, the balance is almost near the last version made by the SY's, with some changes, as well as new build pictures and higher quality models.<br />
<br />
<br />
There is a functional [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/warcows/XTAv6/ unit guide] you would like to consult for costs buildtree etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The basics are that all units are worth its cost and role.<br />
<br />
For some basic info on XTA go here for now:<br><br />
http://www.clan-sy.com/download/xta/<br><br />
[[Units]]<br />
<br />
Back to [[Mods]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mods]]<br />
<br />
{{Category:Mods}}</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18323Theory On Strategy2006-06-07T21:50:33Z<p>Lindir The Green: Added another whole section!</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Video Gmes ==<br />
<br />
In video games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because the strategy is "diluted" by action.<br />
<br />
Most video games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes. But that level of understanding would only be possible by a computer program.<br />
<br />
Multiplayer video games are really just extremely complex games of r/p/s, but with significant differences between the different choices. The realism of the games makes it easier to figure out how the r/p/s arrangements work; it is easier to remember that early anti-air defense beats an early air raid thant it is to remember that if a construction unit builds a certain type of building, that building will make the fast units from a certain type of building less effective.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We shouldn't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Micro in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
Micromanagement is probably the single most fought over subject in an RTS. Starcraft players like a lot of it, TA players like less of it. But in the end, it all boils down a few simple concepts.<br />
<br />
The more things you can pay attention to, the more skill you have at multitasking. And so the more micromanagement in a game, the higher the gap between the skillful multitaskers and the non-skillful multitaskers<br />
<br />
There are two different types of micromanagement: "tactical" and "pointless".<br />
<br />
"Tactical" micro is the small scale r/p/s games of maneuver. Deciding which unit should attack which and where each unit should move, for optimal enemy destruction. It involves split second assesments of the situation, and out guessing your opponent. IMO, "tactical" micro in a game = good.<br />
<br />
"Pointless" micro is the stuff that requires little thinking to pull off. Clicking 100 checkboxes requires skill to do quickly, but doesn't require any "strategy." Telling every unit to attack a single unit for increased efficiency requires valuble brain time, which skilled multitaskers have more of, but doesn't really add strategic depth to the game. Telling all of your hawks to go forwards and backwards and forward and backwards requires a lot of thinking, but really doesn't add '''anything''' to the strategy of a game. Starcraft is filled with "Pointless" micro. IMP, an RTS should try to minimise "pointless" micro.<br />
<br />
Note: It seems like SupComm will severely reduce both types of micro, which is IMO not very good.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategic depth. TA and most of its mods do not seem to realize this.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively. However, the superunit might "overkill" the weak units, becoming less useful.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Features&diff=7428Features2006-05-16T01:38:21Z<p>Lindir The Green: Added links</p>
<hr />
<div>====Current Features====<br />
* Large [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/screenshots.php battles] limited only by the power of your computer; support for up to 5000 units.<br />
* Large, highly detailed [[maps]] in which to wage those battles, fully 3D with deformable terrain, forest fires, dynamic and reflective water, and custom skyboxes.<br />
* Several camera modes, allowing for anything to be viewed from almost any angle.<br />
* Fully 3D combat in land, sea, and air, with realistic weapon trajectories.<br />
* Many different [[mods]], some of them originally from Total Annihilation, and some made just for Spring.<br />
* Compatible with unit files from Total Annihilation, allowing 3rd party units to easily be moved into Spring.<br />
* Complex 3rd party [[AIs]], some of which are quite good.<br />
* An extremely powerful GUI, designed to minimise micromanagement.<br />
* Frequent additions and bugfixes.<br />
<br />
====Currently in Development====<br />
* New, nicer GUI.<br />
* New scripting engine.<br />
* Platform-Independent Lobby Client.<br />
* Many different [[maps]], [[mods]], and [[AIs]].<br />
<br />
====Other plans not on any roadmap====<br />
* [[Monthly Topic Rotation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Content]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Features&diff=7427Features2006-05-16T01:35:12Z<p>Lindir The Green: nvm</p>
<hr />
<div>====Current Features====<br />
* Large battles limited only by the power of your computer; support for up to 5000 units.<br />
* Large, highly detailed maps in which to wage those battles, fully 3D with deformable terrain, forest fires, dynamic and reflective water, and custom skyboxes.<br />
* Several camera modes, allowing for anything to be viewed from almost any angle.<br />
* Fully 3D combat in land, sea, and air, with realistic weapon trajectories.<br />
* Many different mods, some of them originally from Total Annihilation, and some made just for Spring.<br />
* Compatible with unit files from Total Annihilation, allowing 3rd party units to easily be moved into Spring.<br />
* The ability to make complex, 3rd party AI plugins, some of which are quite good.<br />
* An extremely powerful GUI, designed to minimise micromanagement.<br />
* Frequent additions and bugfixes.<br />
<br />
====Currently in Development====<br />
* New, nicer GUI.<br />
* New scripting engine.<br />
* Platform-Independent Lobby Client.<br />
* Many different [[maps]], [[mods]], and [[AIs]].<br />
<br />
====Other plans not on any roadmap====<br />
* [[Monthly Topic Rotation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Content]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Features&diff=7426Features2006-05-16T01:34:51Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Currently in Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>====Current Features====<br />
* Large battles limited only by the power of your computer; support for up to 5000 units.<br />
* Large, highly detailed maps in which to wage those battles, fully 3D with deformable terrain, forest fires, dynamic and reflective water, and custom skyboxes.<br />
* Several camera modes, allowing for anything to be viewed from almost any angle.<br />
* Fully 3D combat in land, sea, and air, with realistic weapon trajectories.<br />
* Many different mods, some of them originally from Total Annihilation, and some made just for Spring.<br />
* Compatible with unit files from Total Annihilation, allowing 3rd party units to easily be moved into Spring.<br />
* The ability to make complex, 3rd party AI plugins, some of which are quite good.<br />
* An extremely powerful GUI, designed to minimise micromanagement.<br />
* Frequent additions and bugfixes.<br />
<br />
====Currently in Development====<br />
* New, nicer [[GUI]].<br />
* New scripting engine.<br />
* Platform-Independent Lobby Client.<br />
* Many different [[maps]], [[mods]], and [[AIs]].<br />
<br />
====Other plans not on any roadmap====<br />
* [[Monthly Topic Rotation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Content]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Features&diff=7425Features2006-05-12T21:13:59Z<p>Lindir The Green: Completely changed it! For the better, of course.</p>
<hr />
<div>====Current Features====<br />
* Large battles limited only by the power of your computer; support for up to 5000 units.<br />
* Large, highly detailed maps in which to wage those battles, fully 3D with deformable terrain, forest fires, dynamic and reflective water, and custom skyboxes.<br />
* Several camera modes, allowing for anything to be viewed from almost any angle.<br />
* Fully 3D combat in land, sea, and air, with realistic weapon trajectories.<br />
* Many different mods, some of them originally from Total Annihilation, and some made just for Spring.<br />
* Compatible with unit files from Total Annihilation, allowing 3rd party units to easily be moved into Spring.<br />
* The ability to make complex, 3rd party AI plugins, some of which are quite good.<br />
* An extremely powerful GUI, designed to minimise micromanagement.<br />
* Frequent additions and bugfixes.<br />
<br />
====Currently in Development====<br />
* New, nicer GUI.<br />
* New scripting engine.<br />
* Platform-Independent Lobby Client.<br />
* Many different [[maps]], [[mods]], and [[AIs]].<br />
<br />
====Other plans not on any roadmap====<br />
* [[Monthly Topic Rotation]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Content]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Epic&diff=6381Epic2006-05-12T13:08:10Z<p>Lindir The Green: spelling</p>
<hr />
<div>{|border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 10px; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; background: #f9f9f9"<br />
|<center>'''Epic AI'''</center><br />
|<center>Coded by AF</center><br />
|<center>'''Not available'''</center><br />
|<center>Universal mod support</center><br />
|<center>'''Under Active Development'''</center><br />
|<center>Open Source</center><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Epic is the next AI after the NTai series. A lot of the discussion on TAI and NTai never got implemented, and lots of other things have been thought of. Epic is the amassing of all of that and coding it into the ultimate skirmish AI. Epic will be revolutionary not just for this project but for RTS game AI in general.<br />
<br />
A first release is penciled in for later 2006 or early 2007<br />
<br />
<br />
''' [[AIs|<- Back to AI page]]'''</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18322Theory On Strategy2006-05-08T13:23:00Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Basics of Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So strategy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We don't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18321Theory On Strategy2006-05-01T13:06:54Z<p>Lindir The Green: very minor</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We don't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18320Theory On Strategy2006-05-01T13:05:56Z<p>Lindir The Green: changed the intro slightly</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff/rephrase stuff/properly format stuff; if I don't like it I will just revert it :)<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We don't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18319Theory On Strategy2006-04-25T13:29:51Z<p>Lindir The Green: Added stuff.</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS. But, fortunately, Humans are very good at abstractly coming up with generalizations, that often carry over from the real world. For example, for a human, it is common sense that tanks are good against standard infantry, buildings, and on plains. We don't even have to analyse the game to figure that out.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*Strategies that are more difficult to pull off should be more powerful than those that are easily used. How much more powerful can vary between games/mods.<br />
<br />
*Expansion and porcing should be considered '''strategies'''. And so, since expansion is much more difficult and risky, controlling the map should always give an advantage. When the advantage is high, the game plays like TA. When the advantage is low, the game playes like most other RTSs.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Strategy_and_Tactics&diff=17975Strategy and Tactics2006-04-22T22:51:36Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Tips and Other */</p>
<hr />
<div>Strategy and tactics are best described as "concepts on how to win". Strategy is a chosen global way of action, while tactics are short-term actions to attain specific goals (i. e. takeover of a choke point, destruction of frontline defense, crippling economy etc.)<br />
<br />
===Common strategies===<br />
<br />
* [[Rushing]] (early rush)<br />
* [[Porcing]] (fortress building)<br />
* [[Map Control]]<br />
* [[Uberweapon]]<br />
* [[Expansion]]<br />
<br />
===Common tactics===<br />
<br />
* [[Commander bombing]]<br />
* [[Commander kidnapping]]<br />
* [[Raiding]]<br />
* [[Swarming]]<br />
* [[Nuke strike]]<br />
* [[Chokepoint]]<br />
* [[Teching]]<br />
* [[Defensive Lines]]<br />
<br />
===Tips and Other===<br />
*[[Spring guide!]]<br />
*[[Base building tips]]<br />
*[[Spring for RTS Players]]<br />
*[[Spring Replays]]<br />
*[[Mods, and their strategies/tactics]]<br />
*[[Advanced Strategy Discussion]]<br />
*[[Resources]]<br />
*[[Theory On Strategy]]<br />
<br />
Return to [[Main Page]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Playing]]<br />
[[category:Strategy]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18318Theory On Strategy2006-04-22T22:49:26Z<p>Lindir The Green: </p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18317Theory On Strategy2006-04-22T22:48:49Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Balance in an RTS */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18316Theory On Strategy2006-04-22T22:47:54Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Balance in an RTS */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18315Theory On Strategy2006-04-22T22:45:52Z<p>Lindir The Green: Oh, this box is for the summary of the changes... Well, I added stuff.</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is basically all of the ideas about strategy that I, Lindir The Green, have come up with during my long hours of pacing.<br />
<br />
Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS.<br />
<br />
== Balance in an RTS ==<br />
<br />
This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.<br />
<br />
*Defenses must be more effective for their cost than mobile attack units, since they are less effective than mobile units at defense. A mobile unit can creep forward with the defense line, but a stationary unit cannot. Also, in TA/Spring, mobile units can dodge projectiles, but defenses cannot.<br />
*Micromanagement/tactics should NOT decide the game, long term strategic plans should. If micromanagement or tactics are that important for victory, it becomes an action game.<br />
*Multiple units filling the same role is bad. An RTS should have the '''minimum''' number of units possible that still allow for the same strategies.<br />
*The best factory to build should NOT depend on the map. This is a common mistake. '''Every factory should be a feasable option in a certain situation on every map'''. The best factory to build should depend on what you think your opponent is going to do. Certain factories can have more options on certain maps than others, but there should be a strategy that would make that factory a bad idea to build.<br />
*The more possible strategies, the better. This means that no strategy should be so powerful that it renders other strategies obsolete. The most powerful strategies should be the most easily countered, if you know that they are coming. If you know exactly which strategy your opponent will use, you '''Must''' be able to win for the game to be balanced. Assuming equal micro skillz, of course.<br />
*The different factions you can be aligned with should have different units. The more different the better. This is why people (including me) like Starcraft, even with all of its horrible physics.<br />
*A superunit that does X damage per second and has Y armor is much more powerful than a number of weak units that altogether do X damage per second and altogether have Y armor, because even when the superunit is at 1 hp, it can do full damage. This is even more accurate when there is an experience system. Also, a number of weak units cannot always attack the same target effectively.<br />
*Superunits are usually balanced out by needing an expensive factory to produce them, but then, once you have an expensive factory up, there is no incentive to produce any non-superunits. A good way to balance this is to have superunits do a lot of damage per hit, but have a large reload time. This would make superunits very useful to mix in the army and deal with buildings and mid-power units, but massive swarms of dirt cheap weak units would kill the superunit.<br />
<br />
That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18314Theory On Strategy2006-04-21T13:33:18Z<p>Lindir The Green: All of my Ideas on Strategy</p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are strategic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.<br />
<br />
But once you figure out (or are told by a walkthrough), the game stop requiring any "normal" strategy, and become pure hand eye coordination and reflxes.<br />
<br />
== The RTS ==<br />
<br />
The Real Time Strategy game is IMHO the greatest genre ever, because a (good) RTS is so intellectually stimulating. Someone playing a good RTS is trying to come up with good unit combos, trying to figure out what the enemy is doing, trying to figure out how to best counter what the enemy is doing, trying to keep track of all units and how the overall battle is going, and looking out for emergency situations that require immediate attention. The winner has the best combination of:<br />
<br />
*"Normal" Strategy<br />
*"Multiplayer" Strategy<br />
*Diplomacy<br />
*H/E coordination<br />
*Reflexes<br />
*Multitasking skillz<br />
<br />
But, like all computer games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears, for that map.<br />
<br />
However, since the rules are so complex, and there are almost infinite combinations of units, maps, and starting resources, it is impossible for a human to perfectly analyse an RTS.<br />
<br />
more later...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18313Theory On Strategy2006-04-20T14:25:25Z<p>Lindir The Green: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is trying to figure out the "rules" of the universe and then using them to accomplish something. But in a game, the rules are (usually) already known. So stragegy in a game is using those rules to accomplish an objective.<br />
<br />
In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.<br />
<br />
In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.<br />
<br />
In a multiplayer game, the new element of trying to outguess your opponent is added. The simplest multiplayer game is Rock/Paper/Scissors, which requires no logic or creativity. It is pure multiplayer strategy. The only differences between the rock, the paper, and the scissors are that they come in different orders in your mind. So if you are playing an opponent that you have a low oppinion of, you usually use paper. But if you are playing an opponent that you have a slightly higher opinion of, you usually use scissors. And so on.<br />
<br />
The only way to predict what your opponent is going to use is to try to guess what your opponent thinks you are going to use, based on how smart you think that your opponent thinks that you are.<br />
<br />
The multiplayer game that requires no multiplayer strategy is Tic-Tac-Toe. If you logically think about the game for 10 minutes, you will become unbeatable.<br />
<br />
Most multiplayer card and board games are a cross between "normal" strategy and "multiplayer" strategy. But if you completely understand the game (like some chess masters, and me at Euchre) the game for you becomes '''only''' "muliplayer" strategic.<br />
<br />
But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.<br />
<br />
Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.<br />
<br />
Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.<br />
<br />
== Strategy in Computer Games ==<br />
<br />
In computer games, the rules are much much more complicated, and in non-turned based games, the elements of reflexes and hand-eye coordination are added to the brew.<br />
<br />
I think that even the most hard c0r3 action games have more strategic depth than any board game, because of their extreme complexity. I would estimate Jazz Jackrabbit (my first computer game) to be at least 20x more complex than the nerdiest military combat board game.<br />
<br />
Conter Strike is probably around 200x more complex.<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't think that action games are stragetic is because strategy isn't absolutely neccesary to win; it just gives you an edge.<br />
<br />
more later...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18312Theory On Strategy2006-04-20T02:03:16Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Basics of Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is really just evaluating the world around you and then altering it to try to get something to happen. But in a game with set rules, the world around you is completely evaluated. So strategy becomes trying to figure out the most effective to win. In a game, strategy requires logic and creativity. In real life, strategy also requires observation.<br />
<br />
hopefully more tomorrow.</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18311Theory On Strategy2006-04-20T02:02:41Z<p>Lindir The Green: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is really just evaluating the world around you and then altering it to try to get something to happen. But in a game with set rules, the world around you is completely evaluated. So strategy becomes trying to figure out the most effective to win. In a game, strategy requires logic and creativity. In real life, strategy also requires observation.<br />
<br />
hopefully more in a few hours, schools out right now so i have to leave the computer lab...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18310Theory On Strategy2006-04-20T02:02:22Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Basics of Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is really just evaluating the world around you and then altering it to try to get something to happen. But in a game with set rules, the world around you is completely evaluated. So strategy becomes trying to figure out the most effective to win. In a game, strategy requires logic and creativity. In real life, strategy also requires observation.<br />
<br />
hopefully more in a few hours, schools out right now so i have to leave the computer lab...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18309Theory On Strategy2006-04-20T02:01:39Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Basics of Strategy */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is really just evaluating the world around you and then altering it to try to get something to happen. But in a game with set rules, the world around you is completely evaluated. So strategy becomes trying to figure out the most effective to win. In a game, strategy requires logic and creativity. In real life, strategy also requires observation.<br />
<br />
hopefully more in a few hours, schools out right now so i have to leave the computer lab...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Theory_On_Strategy&diff=18308Theory On Strategy2006-04-19T19:26:40Z<p>Lindir The Green: About strategy and strategy games</p>
<hr />
<div>This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.<br />
<br />
It is currently not linked to anything, if anybody thinks it is good then feel free to link it, but I probably won't link it until I feel it is complete.<br />
<br />
I am hoping I will keep adding to this; it seemed like a really great idea 2 days ago, not so much yesterday, and sorta good today.<br />
<br />
== Basics of Strategy ==<br />
<br />
In real life, strategy is really just evaluating the world around you and then altering it to try to get something to happen. But in a game with set rules, the world around you is completely evaluated. So strategy becomes trying to figure out the most effective to win. In a game, strategy requires logic and creativity. In real life, strategy also requires observation.<br />
<br />
hopefully more in a few hours, schools out right now so i have to leave the computer lab...</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Spring_guide&diff=17470Spring guide2006-01-09T03:14:34Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* Using Terrain */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''<br />
<br />
‘’Keep in mind that spring still is a beta , therefore crashes happen (a lot) and we (well, not me!) haven’t got everything fixed out yet.’’<br />
<br />
<br />
Before we start, let’s have some background info.<br />
<br />
== TA: so what's so cool about this game ? ==<br />
[warning, boring info that doesn’t really mean anything]<br />
<br />
TA was created by Cavedog (R.I.P) in 1997, about half a year before(!!!) Starcraft was released. It was revolutionary in many ways, with 3D graphics (but a fixed camera) good animations (aircraft barrel rolled and leaned when they turned etc.), 3D terrain and many units (150 in the original game.) But in my not so humble opinion, the 3 greatest things that set TA apart were...<br />
<br />
* Its physics ! Every shot trajectory was calculated ! An artillery shell could try to get over a hill and hit an aircraft, which exploded into bits, damaging other troops nearby, which could also explode and set forests in fire. Yeah, might not sound that big after 7 years, but back then we had Starcraft, which defied at least a half dozen physics laws.<br />
<br />
(Example of the tentacle through space. Yeah, really realistic)<br />
[http://fast.filespace.org/Kixxe/WTF.png Click here]<br />
<br />
* The order system ! You could have 300 units waiting to be built, and when they are done, they could go and patrol an area and attack anyone in it. Order queues were limitless. You could build your whole base and drink tea while it was getting built. Construction units on patrol would repair damaged units, help build things and reclaim stuff (sucking it in and transforming it into resources.)<br />
<br />
* The resources system ! Contrary to other RTS games, the resources in TA are infinite. What limits resource consumption is the rate at which they can be gathered. This sole fact would make for longer and more epic games, with hundreds or thousands of units fighting in the endgame.<br />
<br />
Pretty cool game. If you want, check out their old website for more info. [http://www.fileuniverse.com/Total_Annihilation_Mirror/totala/index.html Click here]<br />
<br />
[/warning, boring info that doesn’t really mean anything]<br />
<br />
<br />
Anyway, enough with my rambling, onto Spring!<br />
<br />
Now, as I told you, Spring was inspired by TA and has the same features TA had. Plus a few new things… check out Spring features page for more info.<br />
[http://taspring.clan-sy.com/wiki/Features Click here]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Resources==<br />
<br />
There are two types of resources in spring, namely ''metal'' and ''energy''. Each of these two resources can be collected in a number of different ways. The amount of each resource that you currently have stockpiled is represented by a coloured bar, one for each resource, along the upper edge of the screen. The rate at which you are presently collecting and consuming each of the two types is represented by a number and a + or - sign. If you are collecting at a faster rate then the rate at which you are consuming you will see your coloured bar grow as resources accumulate. Your stockpiled resources are being depleted whenever the coloured bar is shrinking. There are storage buildings which you can build for each type of resource and these will increase the amount of each which can be stored. Units and structures cost both metal and energy to build, while some units or structures also require energy to walk, shoot or operate in general.<br />
<br />
Metal is collected continuously from either a metal extractor, often called ‘mexes’ which extract from certain areas of the map, or by using a metal maker, abbreviated as ‘MM’ which convert energy into metal. Both will only operate so long as there is sufficient energy to power them. However, metal makers require a lot of energy. <br />
A faster way to gather metal is by using either your commander or a construction bot to 'reclaim' it from the remains of destroyed units and buildings! They can even reclaim buildings which have not been destroyed and they don't have to belong to your enemy to be reclaimed.<br />
<br />
Energy can be produced by a number of different buildings or it can be reclaimed (you can reclaim trees to gather energy). There are many different types of energy producers, including solar collectors and power plants, but they will be covered in another section.<br />
<br />
In a game, always “keep an eye on your metal and energy bar“ because if one of them goes to zero, particularly energy, your building rate will stall,(metal makers and extractors will stop producing) and some units will be unable to fire their energy weapons (eg. LRPCs, Annihilators, Doomsday Machines). <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==A Normal Spring Game==<br />
<br />
Anyway, now you will learn the basics of a normal Spring game, as I see it. <br />
Every Spring game starts with all players only having…<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The COMMANDER'''! (Insert DUN DUN DUUUUUNN)<br />
<br />
The Commander is the unit you start with and the most important one in game. He is unique and cannot be rebuilt. In fact, there is a mode where the game ends when the commander dies, so never leave him alone.<br />
<br />
The fastest builder, he can walk and build under water, he makes a nuke sized explosion when he dies, he has a laser and the privilege of a Disintegrator gun (alias D-Gun). <br />
The D-gun is the single most powerful weapon in the whole game, which kills ANY (ANY, I mean it!) unit in one hit (friend or foe no difference, be careful!). Even if that sounds a little overkill, keep in mind that the Commander has a very limited range, is defenceless against any aircraft and long range artillery and when he is submerged, he cannot shoot. (Subs! Onoz!)<br />
<br />
The Commander is used for setting up a base, and early base defences. The D-gun should protect him against any level 1 unit that tries to kill him, so if you lose your Commander in the beginning of the game… then you're dead. You lose your best (only?) builder and attacker, plus you have a nuke size explosion that may destroy half or all of your base.<br />
<br />
<br />
Anyway… if you're seeing everything in a top down perspective, click the Commander (type Ctrl+C if you can't find him) with left mouse button to select him.<br />
<br />
(If you have a crosshair as a mouse, press j. If your camera is ZOOMED out or all jerky, press ctrl+j until you find OTA camera.)<br />
<br />
Okay, let’s now discuss '''how to build stuff'''.<br />
<br />
Like any normal RTS, it’s choose and click location. But there is more with Spring. Hold shift and click on different locations to make the unit build the same building there. Hold shift and drag and you will make a line of the building. Hold ctrl and shift to make boxes/rectangular shapes of buildings. Use these ! Make a line of DT (Dragon Teeth, small piece of wall/cover) instead of clicking each and everyone. The controls are there to help you.<br />
This is called queuing up stuff. You can use almost every single command in a queue. Buildings can be queued to build lots of different units, and then the other orders in the behaviour of the unit. You can make them walk to something, or guard/follow a unit by pressing G and selecting the unit to guard. Try it.<br />
Selecting a unit and pressing Shift key will show the orders queue.<br />
<br />
Build 2 solar generators, or 4 wind generators to gather energy. Keep in mind that wind is pretty unstable, and that a number of maps (like lunar ones) have no wind at all ! (The level of wind and tides in the map is indicated in the Map Selector in the Lobby).<br />
<br />
Now select the Metal extractors and the whole screen turns black and green. Okay, place one on the green stuff. (The greener, the better! Like broccoli!)<br />
<br />
Oh, and the minimap controls in spring are reversed. Meaning that you have to rightclick to move the screen to the location. Once the new Gui is out and offical, this will be fixed.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==The TA bestiary==<br />
<br />
Okay, time to describe the cool units that are at your disposal to make your enemies bleed. 8)<br />
<br />
(Disclaimer : This will discuss the types of units, not every unit. Therefore, if I say that vehicles have large armour, I don’t mean artillery of course.)<br />
<br />
On to the first level 1 lab/plant to build. The categories are…<br />
<br />
===Vehicles===<br />
<br />
These babies are all about armour. The level 1 units are pretty basic, with more armour and (build) speed and than their K-bot counterparts. Level 2 vehicles show even more of the same pattern: better armour than their K-bot counterparts. Level 2 also offers the mobile Flak unit, which is the only real level 2 mobile AA.<br />
Their weakness is that they are clumsy, turn slowly, and most of them can’t climb mountains… at all. Leads to trouble when an explosion makes a crater: units survive but can get stuck in the crater. Or just when they are trying to get up a steep hill. But sooner or later, you'll learn what kind of destruction a rush of 30 Goliaths can do !<br />
<br />
===K-Bots===<br />
<br />
K-bots have genereally less powerful weapons than tanks, and are also less heavily armoured.<br />
So why build them in the first place?<br />
Because they are cheaper! And since they are cheaper, you can build more and outnumber your enemies. This doesn’t work out that good in game though, since tanks ARE stronger. K-bots are also smaller, and will slip through DT and such alike easier than tanks.<br />
And finally, the third advantage (which IMO is the biggest) of K-bots are that they can climb most mountains with ease! Climb by defences, up on mountains, through holes, these are all-purpose units.<br />
<br />
===Aircraft===<br />
<br />
Planes are planes. In Spring, there’s a plane for every role. Bombers, fighters, gunships, flying radar, transports, stealth fighters and torpedo bombers. Planes are fast, and are not affected by terrain. There is no wall or relief that can stop a plane. You can just swoop in a base and take out AA with your gunship, and then bomb the crap out of their important structures. To stop them, you've got to rely on Anti Air (AA) units.<br />
<br />
On the downside, planes are quite expensive to build and are relatively fragile. They are also the only units that have an anti unit against them (Except subs). When someone finds out you're building a large air fleet, they just cram their base full of AA and their army with mobile AA. And the only counter is more planes than their AA can handle, or a ground troop to take the AA down. A combined ground and air attack can be very destructive. Good luck!<br />
<br />
===Ships===<br />
<br />
Ships are good on a map with water. (DUH!) Ships come in many different kinds, but mostly for taking out other ships or bombing the crap out of land units in some way or another. The ships' strength is their powerful weaponry and their long range. All ships made to take out land have long range. Ships also have lots of armour. Another thing that’s good about ships is that there is not much you can do to stop them because they are usually out of range. Once you see that the enemy has ships, either build a dock and a navy real fast or build planes and pray that he doesn’t have too many AA ships. <br />
Their weaknesses are slowness (especially when turning), they can be taken out by submarines, and of course they are confined to water, meaning that they are often stuck with units just outside of their reach.<br />
<br />
And they are *extremely* expensive, metal-wise.<br />
<br />
===Hovercraft===<br />
<br />
(These are counted as level 2 units, so I would not recommend them as the first to build unless it’s the perfect map for them)<br />
<br />
Hovercrafts are a tank and a plane (some say ship, but I find planes to be more accurate for some reason O.o) mixed. Sure it’s weaker than your average tank, and slower than your average plane. Whats their use? They are meant for swampy maps that means that both tanks and ships are a weakness, and offcourse since none can't be used, everyone just spams out AA since they think aircrafts are the only way. Great suprise for the enemy when 50 hovercrafts comes in agsint their flakkers and MT...<br />
Long story short, Hovercrafts are good for those who like (or must) attack from the ground, but can’t since there is too much water. <br />
<br />
Their weakness is their low climbing ability, and that they're weaker than a tank and slower than a plane. (Don’t build them on a land map, tanks ARE better.)<br />
<br />
===Towers and Turrets===<br />
<br />
Like TA, Spring boasts an impressive range of plasma and laser towers, cannons and turrets. These cannons will undoubtly be essential parts of your offensive as well as defensive strategies.<br />
<br />
'''Light laser tower (LLT)'''<br />
A cheap and fast laser that hits almost every time. Mostly useful against level 1 units, but can be used in groups against level 2. They suffer from short range, so most long range weapons can kill them(Samsons, for example). Since they fire faster than their bigger brothers, LLTs are more useful against hordes of small weak units than a single strong one. <br />
<br />
'''Heavy laser tower (HLT)'''<br />
This is the only tower that works on those pesky level 2 units that just won’t die. These shoot slower, but with much more power than the LLT. They also have a longer range and can be quite effective against air attacks. They cost a fair amount and take a long time to build, but they are often worth it.<br />
<br />
'''Missile Tower (MT)'''<br />
The missile tower is good for planes or weak level 1 units. They shoot a weak rocket that almost hits their target every time. They have a fair range, but very low hp. They work on most level 2 planes as well, but should be backed up with Flack cannons.<br />
<br />
'''Pop-up Cannons'''<br />
Pop-up cannons are pretty cheap middle range gun. A guardian can outshoot them, but they are still a choice to use. When ‘’off’’ they take 50% less damage! I heard that a closed popup can withstand a nuke! (If it’s not a direct hit) In XTA you can build them with level 1 construction K-bot or whatever. Sometimes individual wars between 2 or 4 pop-ups break out, where both sides try to kill the other's ones. Just remember to repair them, as with all PC…<br />
<br />
'''Middle range Plasma Cannons (MRPC)'''<br />
Guardians and such alike. These aren’t for attacking, but they have a pretty long range, and are not too expensive. Plus their targeting is pretty fast, meaning they are practically made for defence and very lethal. Perfect to have on a hill close to a HLT and some MT…<br />
<br />
'''Long Range Plasma Cannons (LRPC)'''<br />
We are talking Big berthas, Intimidators and such alike. These babies got the RANGE and may be the ultimate weapon on small maps. The Big Bertha, yeah. An amazing unit. Not the ultimate, but several times cheaper and more accurate than a Buzz Saw/Vulcan, and its accuracy will improve with every kill. Not good at defending, since its slow targeting makes it impossible to hit moving targets. Try to build one on a small maps, or just build one close to the enemy and your Bertha will start pounding his base mercilessly. In fact, build several, with a lot of AA around'em (and ground, if that’s possible) and you'll see your enemy's morale quickly fall to the ground. A LRPC expansion can sometimes become the winning factor of a game.<br />
<br />
'''Very long range plasma Cannons (VLRC)'''<br />
Buzzsaws are big, cost much, are huge energy suckers, are VERY inaccurate and are pretty slow on targeting. BUT, they have the DOUBLE range of a normal LRPC and shoot 4(!!!) shots at a time. This is the one thing to finish those über porckers. <br />
Defend these well, with lots of AA around and in a wide circle. They only have about 5000 hp, so killing'em is easy if you don’t have AA…<br />
In OTA however Vulcans/Buzzsaws have SLIGHTLY LESS range than LRPCs, so LRPCs are generally better because they are so cheaper and each are a seperate entity with a fair bit of life(around 2500 i think).<br />
<br />
The obvious way to kill LRC is to use planes, since they are fast enough to enter and kill it all.<br />
<br />
===The first steps===<br />
<br />
Now comes the tricky part. The first minute is always the same really, so what after that?<br />
Well, it’s hard to judge. But here are some paths that can be taken.<br />
<br />
1. Build many construction units and send them out to build mexxes and Geothermal Power Plants. Then a defence and maybe some DT.<br />
<br />
2. Build some construction units, and then start building defences. Follow the ‘’line defence’’ guide lines.<br />
Build Fusion Power Plants and Metal makers, and then an army. After that, use the army how armies are used best.<br />
This strategy is called PORCING, and is considered by many as BAD.<br />
There are disadvantages with this. You can’t use many metal extractors or Geos, so you have slim to no resources to build your base. A popular strategy is to kill the anti-nuke, and then blow the whole compact base to bits.<br />
<br />
3. Build a small army of 3-6 units and attack the enemy. The goal isn’t to kill him, but to do as much damage as possible to his resources and hinder his economy. Mexxes are the most important, and then look for wind or solar generators.<br />
Try to keep on attacking him, but remember to still tech up and build defences.<br />
<br />
Anyway, use your construction units to build defences of SOME kind. Take advantage of Geothermal gases. Yeah the smoking stuff. You can place Geo plants there for good, cheap and space saving energy. If you’re expanding, use every Mex' positions, and try to find a place to settle your defence line.<br />
<br />
When you can defend yourself from most level 1 units, start on your level 2 building.<br />
<br />
When it’s done, ALWAYS build a construction unit first. Use it for your first mini Fusion. (Or build some mobile fusion at the vehicle plant if you're Arm)<br />
Build level 2 units in the meantime.<br />
Low on metal? Upgrade the finest of your Mexxes to Moho Mexxes. They are bigger and better (but they suck up energy).<br />
You can also build a Moho Metal maker if you have enough energy to support it. (MMM :p)<br />
Okay, if you made this far, you must really start thinking about how to defeat the enemy. Look for his weak spot. Maybe a K-bot assault from the mountains ? Maybe planes. Maybe using amphibious units. That part is for you to figure out.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==STRATEGY==<br />
<br />
I read this guide through, and suddenly realised… <br />
<br />
''where is the strategy?'' <br />
<br />
So I fiddled this section up. Hope you'll learn something from it and thereby increase your Spring gaming experience.<br />
<br />
===Defence===<br />
<br />
Ah… the overall defence. There are many different ways of making a good defence, but there are 3 main categories.<br />
<br />
''Compact defence!''<br />
<br />
The most common type of defence is a single line of defence, often with Dragon Teeth (DT) in front. Inside your base is some AA, and that’s about it. The good thing about this is that it’s pretty easy and fast to set up, and you know where your territory ends, which can make the game much easier. Problem is, if something makes it past the line of defence, then you’re screwed. Unless you’re building line after line of defence, or have some units to stop em.<br />
<br />
''Spread out defence!''<br />
<br />
I saw a guy pull this off one time, and he won with a large margin. The trick with this is to never really have a defined line of defence, just a Heavy Laser Tower (HLT) here, a radar there, some DT there, a mine here and there…<br />
Basically, you expand every time you build a defence building, so in the end you have ENORMOUS space to move in. Since the defence is spread out, no one is gonna rush it past with some goliaths. You can have some units hide behind mountains and attack. He used merls who he trapped in fortification walls. I tried to run past the defence with an army of 30 bulldogs. His HLT and missile and plasma batteries stopped me before I even reached his final defence line.<br />
Even though this defence are the best of 'em all, it’s hard to build up, and requires lots off resources and time. IF you’re able to pull it off, the only problem may be if they are fast enough to run by it all, or if you don’t have much AA and 30 Brawlers are coming…<br />
<br />
''No defence… at all?''<br />
<br />
Yes, this is an option. Okay, you may want some mines here and there, and some DT to stop them from running right through the door and AA in your base if their building planes. But how do you defend with no defence?<br />
with units. The whole concept is that you put all your effort on making units. This works pretty well, since you can look where the enemy is going to attack, you can MOVE your whole defence to that location.<br />
The problem with this defence, is that when you are attacking, you lose most of your defence. Sure you can leave units behind, but I find it hard mentally to leave half the army at home when i am attacking. <br />
If you manage to pull this off, and make enough units to both attack and defend, then you have not wasted any money on defence, and you have a strong army!<br />
<br />
That’s all I know of.<br />
<br />
Also, one thing to remember is to eliminate the largest threat first. If you’re relying on DT, take out the FARK or construction planes first.<br />
<br />
Okay, you built a good defence<br />
You must get into the mind of your enemy, and find the weakness of your defence.<br />
Take a 4 seconds look through the enemy’s eyes that just scouted the area. How would you attack something like this?<br />
*"Well, I would try a gunship raid or attack from those undefended mountains…"<br />
Then prevent that from happening, by reinforcing the area.<br />
<br />
-- addendum by Cain<br />
<br />
''The All Out Defence''<br />
<br />
The opposite from the no defence, mixed with spread defence: the main concept is to invest resource in level 1 build planes, lot of them, and use them to quickly gather huge amounts of maps and resources, while keeping a lot of plane building / repairing turrets all over the places. This could be very effective on maps with few choke points where concentrate the defence or almost flats map where the overlapping range of defence will create a huge wall of shoot. The concept is to expand the defence line until you can shoot straight into the enemy base. Best used with a lot of level 2 aircraft defending the construction point. Note that the mobility of them is essential as you're concentrating all your resource in building plasma turrets. I usually end with a hundred of building planes and 20 to 50 brawler floating around... keep them away from Kroghot!<br />
<br />
===Moving===<br />
Moving or attacking is pretty easy right? Just move from point a to point b and attack c…<br />
Nope.<br />
First, you have to have your units move TOGETHER. . If some are trailing behind, then you just have to wait a little for them. Don’t know how much of that is true. A way of having your units stick together is to take a pretty slow unit, like a Can and have others guard it.<br />
Pressing control while moving units will make them keep their position, but not their speed. (they will spread out along the way, but ''try'' to get back into the position they was in when reaching the detination)<br />
The ''Simple formation'' is also way of doing this, and will the units wiil automaticly form couple of lines. Ofen with the right units first also!<br />
Transports are useful for moving units, but use the air transport (Valkyrie /Atlas) smartly and protect them. The other transportation units are harder to use, since they take more time to load/unload.<br />
<br />
===Attacking===<br />
<br />
When attacking, remember what the unit role in the fight is. Fark are used to heal your wounded important units or. Bulldogs are meant to take damage and give damage back. Merls are used to shot missiles from distance, and doesn’t require a clear path. The question is what to heal. Merls die quickly, so one shot= dead can mean that the healing could be used on a bulldog instead. But bulldogs are ofen the first thing that the enemy targets and loses lots of HP fast. Wicht means that your healing may have slim effect on em... Therefore try to heal the middle mans. Not the giant hp monsters, not the weak defence strong/useful attack. Mobile artillery has enough hp to survive one or two attacks. Heal them so they stay alive.<br />
<br />
===Army vs Army===<br />
<br />
Many units attacking one unit is the best thing you can do, as if you kill one of theirs, they lose one source of fire power. Focus fire is the important. Using focus fire in a group of easy killed units is very effective. Using em all on the HP power houses is less effective.<br />
When you’re facing an army, always try to attack from behind or the side. Keep your units a little spread out when attacking. Not to far, but just so that area weapons don’t do as much damage. Have your HP powerhouses at the front, or at the front plus sides. Keep em pretty close though but not too much. On the one hand, having them spread out makes it easier for the units behind to attack; on the other hand you don’t want Zippers and Pyros running past them and flaming up everything.<br />
<br />
This is the normal way of attacking the army. There is the classical pincher movement too…<br />
In this, you run one third of your HP powerhouses go to the left, one third to the right and have thze last third stay where they are. <br />
This gives you 3 advantages: <br />
*it's easier to get past the units and attack their weak units, or just run past them into the base, <br />
*you do more damage, since their units will have to change their target all the time and can't escape <br />
*it makes it MUCH harder for the enemy to run away or try to get past you.<br />
<br />
===Army vs Base===<br />
<br />
Okay, you may have made it past the ground troops, but the fight is not over (Unless he used units to defend, and didn’t have any backup ones). Now you must face his base defence, and depending on the type of the defence he has…<br />
<br />
''Line defence''<br />
<br />
Gather your army and set up for battle a bit away from his base, and get ready to move in. Have the FARKS guard your main HP power houses, so they are in the front but still can hide behind em. Everything else behind that. When attacking, have several units attacking the HLT and plasma batteries, and use the FARKS to reclaim his Dragon Teeth. When you have a hole in it, just run like a maniac into the heart of the base. Split your tanks in 2 groups, 1 guarding your long range/high damage units and let the other go loose into the heart of the base. Find the Fusion reactors with your second group of tanks, and try to move the other big group to a place that is easy to defend while hitting the Fusions. Behind buildings is perfect! Kill as much as you can in short, or kill all^^. <br />
If there are several lines of defence, dig the hole in each line of defence and repeat the same tactics.<br />
<br />
''Spread out defence''<br />
<br />
Argh… The tough one. While the individual towers are easy to beat, you can’t run past his defences unless you like suicide. (And if you do, Ctrl+a and then ctrl+d will do the trick. A slice over the wrist works too.)<br />
This is when you have to make penitence. Use your army, and slowly start killing the defence. Step by step, defence structure by defence structure. Keep building units, and moving them to the fray (you can use Air transports with repeat command and make them drop the units slightly away from the fight). Once you start getting close to his last line of defence, think of it as a line defence.<br />
<br />
''Units defence''<br />
<br />
Think army vs army. Don’t rush past 'em with all your units. Your units will spread out and try to go through holes in the enemy’s formation. In a word, they are dead meat. If you MUST get to the base, have half of the tanks go round the units.<br />
<br />
===Naval Battles===<br />
<br />
Naval battles are hard to predict if you don’t play island maps a lot, since there many factors to take into play. Since land units are removed, you have to think in a WHOLE new perspective. No land means that only Sea, Air and Hover units can fight (and LRC off course).<br />
Anyway, try to have air units scouting land and sea, and looking how much AA the enemy has. Ships roam around assaulting other ships, with a mix of subs, sub killers, AA ships and normal ships. Hovercrafts should be the thing to use when assaulting land that’s a little far from shore. Have'em escorted with planes or ships (or both).<br />
<br />
====Ships====<br />
When using ships, have scout ships or planes scout the area in front, then subs and sub killers front. Use Long range ships at the sides to protect anything of value you might have with you (a sea transport or an aircraft carrier). When in battle, try to have the subs run away from sub killers, while your sub killers kill the enemy subs. Your subs should try to attack the most important ship they have, and then just go crazy.<br />
When facing land, you’re pretty much in for an easy win. Just have your ships blow it all up. If you face LRC, take them out first. The rest of it is out of your hands.<br />
Remember if your opponent has air superiority or LRPCs use subs as they can't hit them :)<br />
<br />
====Hovercraft====<br />
Use the Army vs Army or Army vs Base strategy here.<br />
<br />
-- addendum by Cain.<br />
<br />
Howercraft are quite expensive compared to other land units, but are very useful also in the map with a bit of water, targetting enemies without worring of those pesky gholiat... Note that they're much cheaper than ship, anyway.<br />
<br />
===Planes===<br />
Hohoho, planes. Fun stuff to attack with. Anyway, the most stuff is basic with planes.<br />
First, always attack the AA first. Unless your are going to do a suicide mission. Kill the AA with gunships, and use bombers to kill structures. Many players use gunships only, with is pretty wrong. Bombers take a little time to master but allied with gunships, they do a very good job. Scout early, so you can quickly see WHAT the enemy has and WHERE he has it. Use gunships to take out AA and act like overall decoys. Have Bombers fly in and bomb the crap out off his Fusion or whatever nevralgic point, and use the fighters to guard the bombers.<br />
When facing units, do the same.<br />
When facing sea, do the same thing, but add Torpedoes to bombers and gunships.<br />
<br />
-- addendum by Cain<br />
<br />
Know where the enemy commander is! In game where the commander death is a winning condition, a lot of bomber could just converge on him, killing on the first run.. especially the 2nd level bombers that have a nice turretted fast targetting laser! Also, gunship could distract enemy defence from your main attack force, or you can use them to make the defences of distract players shooting their own base....<br />
<br />
===Using Terrain===<br />
<br />
Using terrain wisely is very important. The issue of a game can depend on a good use of terrain.<br />
First, Line of Sight (LOS) and RADAR. Both are blocked by terrain. So build your radars as high up as possibly, otherwise you may just not see anything. Use the relief at your advantage to hide an army or your important buildings from enemy radars.<br />
Of course, one can also take advantage of altitude to increase fire range. A couple of Guardians on top of two high hills can easily devastate a small army.<br />
Terrain also helps shield your units against attacks. Therefore, when you’re building something high on top of a hill, try placing it a little behind the top. This is like crouching behind a crate when just your head and gun sticks up. But remember that terrain in Spring is deformable and can be leveled by impacts !<br />
Know the climbing ability of your units. Hovercrafts and vehicles have pretty low climbing ability. But if a foe thinks he has sealed up all exits, your K-bots can still climb the mountains where he hasn’t put any Dragon Tooth… <br />
Another good thing about terrain is that it mentally makes you feel safe. If there is a water barrier between me and the enemy, with 3 land bridges here and there, there probably won’t have much ground defence at a location AWAY from the bridges. Presuming the map is pretty flat (like "Flooded Desert") a hovercraft assault would do A LOT of damage, right?<br />
<br />
===Energy and all the problems with it===<br />
(in xta)<br />
As I said before, most level 2 units require energy to move, shoot and operate in general. Meaning that if you have no energy to support your army, you can't do anything ! You can use this in your favor, by attacking his Fusions, or<br />
by ''giving'' Metal makers to your enemy when you are attacking him, or he is attacking you! Things that drain a lot of energy include LRPC, Goliaths, HLT, and most level 2 units.<br />
(/in xta)<br />
<br />
===Paper-rock-scissor ?===<br />
<br />
Try to look at all units as individuals. Even if I didn't write much about each single unit, know your favorite ones and how to use them effectively in conjunction with the others. You'll find that some units are very complementary. The only real paper-rock relationships are AA and planes... Maybe subs vs sub killers...<br />
<br />
I didn't even mention cloaking, radar jamming, troops behaviour facing attacks, mines, etc, etc. The possibilities are immense, but I don't want to spoil your pleasure any longer, so I'll let you discover them by yourself.<br />
<br />
'''Have fun !!!'''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Strategy Tips===<br />
<br />
-Expand! Metal is scarce. The more you get, the more you can build. Even if you have a good base, not a bad thing to do is to make it bigger.<br />
<br />
-Scout! Knowledge is power. You must know what your enemy is planning, and what the enemy knows about you. (Or thinks he know about you�) Check what he has, and what he is building. If he’s building aircrafts, do something about it. Look for weaknesses in defence and such alike. If you or your ally are scouting, don’t look away. Gather as much information as possible.<br />
ALL buildings once in sight range will remain visible as 'ghost' buildings.<br />
<br />
-Radar = GOOD^^. Radar checks areas for units, increases your units LOS and is overall helpful. A radar with your army makes a big difference when attacking. But so is Jamming. Jamming is good for sneak attacks. They are cheap, so just build one and make your units guard it.<br />
<br />
-Work Together! Often I see allies who just mind their own business and don’t care what the other person's doing. DON’T… DO… THIS!!! Listen to each other, make up a plan. Prepare combined attacks. If there is a 2v2, then it’s 2 allies’ vs 2 allies. Not a ffa with neutral partners. Type h to share units. Left click on the bars to auto share resources with allies<br />
<br />
-Power Plants. In order to level out the building costs, it is important to make a smooth transition from the least powerful generators to the most powerful ones stepwise. First solar, then Geo, then mobile/mini Fusion then Fusion.<br />
<br />
-Check your rescore bar. Try to keep a fine line between having too much resources and wasting, and having a nanostall. Use your factories and such accordingly. If you have a lot of resources, try using your old level 1 factories to build some units. Also, try to find the time to build an energy/metal storage...<br />
<br />
-Spread out your buildings/units. Since every unit explodes, they damage units close to them. This is especially important with Fusions... (I once saw someone put 13 mobile fusions close to each other... blew up half his base with 2 (!!!) LRPC shots...)<br />
<br />
-Queue (yeah, easy word for it to:/) up orders! You can almost win the game by pausing, queuing up some stuff, and then go eat lunch. Not really, but holding shift is good whilst putting up buildings.<br />
<br />
-Guard = following and protection. Use planes to guard your tanks, subs to guard your transports, construction units to automatically repair important units or and so on. Then they will choose to attack whatever is hurting their guard object first. You can even do this to structures, for units who are built to move to a unit’s position or AA to attack whatever is shooting on the Fusion reactors, etc… <br />
Overall, this makes working with several unit types easier.<br />
<br />
-Reclaim stuff (sucking it in and transforming it into resources). When you're starting to run low on metal, reclaim the enemy’s and your own corpses. Trees give energy, so if you’re out on energy in the beginning... You can reclaim a whole area by shift-clicking.<br />
<br />
-The key for porcers are to build LRPC. Or even better, build a nuke and use LOTS of planes to kill his anti-nuke. Then BOOM!<br />
Also as you have way loads more metal and space to move in than your opponent, you can easily afford 2 nukes. An anti-nuke can't deal with 2 nukes heading towards it(and if you aim the nukes at the antinuke...^^!<br />
<br />
-Experiment! I suggest you go into single player and try every unit. Use commanders for arm, and small battle (watch that Krogoth!) for core. Try every approach to a problem. Remember, just because a unit is good, it’s not invincible. Also, try how much metal and energy a building uses while in operation. For instance, a level 1 factory uses about 50 energy and 5 metal. This varies depending on what you build. This could help you prevent nanostalling.<br />
<br />
-Several types of factories. Yeah, even if it costs money. A advanced building cost as much as a Bulldog or 2... You got the time, and the money. Build it.<br />
<br />
-Raid. Take the Weasel or a couple of Peewees on a cruise right by the enemy’s mexxes. Having trouble finding'em ? Type F4 to see where the ground is drained^^. A tip is to stay away from the Commander, or use buildings as hostages. Hide behind stuff and kill it off, then move on. If you're sure you're going to die, move close to a building and self-destruct.<br />
<br />
-Just because Peewees are better then AK’s doesn’t meant that AK’s are useless. (And so on…). In fact, no unit is useless. If you believe it is, try it once. On what it was meant to do.<br />
<br />
-Mix armies. O boy, if you haven’t heard this one a thousand times before, you've only been playing Half-Life for the last 7 years or something. Even if Goliaths rule, a couple of missile units will make them much more effective.<br />
<br />
-Farks are useful in combat. Always have 1-3 with you. Reclaiming DT, or doing what they were meant to do : Repair -.-* (also, when i say FARKs somewhere in the guide, construction units work to...)<br />
<br />
-Ask questions. No one is going to laugh at you. And if someone does, he’s a ass and shouldn’t even be poked a stick at. No question is too stupid. Just don’t expect anyone in the heat of a battle to answer to ‘’how do I play?’’.<br />
<br />
-Learn ! If you lost, use the replay too to watch the game and try to understand why you died. What did the enemy do better than you? What was the key to winning? And so on.<br />
<br />
-The Readme file has some cool keyboard shortcuts... check it out.<br />
<br />
-Develop! Are you a programmer, a 3D design artist or just some regular Joe? Come to the forum for a talk, chatter, and make wacky suggestions! In the end you may contribute of making Spring better! Remember, Spring is open source. So just dive into there and replace AK’s with flying monkeys in space suits or whatever.<br />
<br />
-Try having some good music on when playing. It can give you a good kick. I recommend the WAR OF THE WORLD (the strategy game, yes it exists) ‘’eve of the war’’ [http://www.fileuniverse.com/?page=listing&ID=54 the original TA music] <br />
Or anything you like.<br />
<br />
-Need more strategy and tips? Since Spring is a remake of TA, any TA strategy guide works...<br />
<br />
-LAST BUT NOT LEAST : '''Don’t get too serious. It’s only a game.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
This guide was written by Kixxe aka Johan Wittrock before everyone edited (and improved!) it mercilessly.<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[Strategy_and_Tactics]]</div>Lindir The Greenhttps://springrts-wiki.p2004a.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=FAQ&diff=6830FAQ2006-01-07T23:37:45Z<p>Lindir The Green: /* What port numbers does Spring use? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==General information==<br />
<br />
===What is Spring?===<br />
Spring is a project to create the best RTS ever (no joke). There are three principle goals which we hope to achieve.<br />
<br />
# Reach a stage where TA Spring can flawlessly execute most of Total Annihilation's original gameplay, with its original units in their original format.<br />
# Add new features as we see fit, fix bugs, and release new versions when we feel it is appropriate to do so.<br />
# Support the mod community as we see fit.<br />
<br />
The goals might need an update.. -- Tim Blokdijk<br />
<br />
===When will Spring be ready?===<br />
Now! You can get the latest beta from the [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/download.php download page].<br />
<br />
===Will Spring be free?===<br />
The core game is released under GPL License. However, some parts of the game are still under copyright by their owners. Therefore, today, you need to own the original TA game if you want to play. However the community is working hard in order to offer completely free alternatives.<br />
<br />
===Why can I edit this page?===<br />
This page, and several others, are located in the Spring [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki Wiki]. The link gives a full explanation of what it is, but in short it is a way of letting anyone who wants to contribute to the page content. This can of course be abused, but even while it is easy for someone to vandalise the page, it is just as easy for someone to restore it, since the wiki saves all previous versions of a page.<br />
<br />
===Why can't I edit this page?===<br />
You need to be [[Special:Userlogin|logged in]] to edit our wiki because people were vandalizing and/or being morons too much, so they had to lock it down.<br />
<br />
===I want to help, what can I do?===<br />
Please look at the Messageboard. There are lots of things you can do according to your skills. Particularly important is to create viable and pleasing free alternatives to copyrighted material, mainly sounds and units.<br />
<br />
===I want to donate.===<br />
People have made clear their desire to donate to the project, and so far, we have been fairly reluctant about accepting donations. Our main concern? While we certainly hope to have something on the level of a commercial release in the near future, there is no guarantee that it will ever happen. Unforeseen events arise, and it would be most unfortunate if everyone who donated felt swindled because the project did not turn out as they had hoped.<br />
<br />
We do not plan to be more or less productive solely based upon the quantity and frequency of donations received. The Spring project is here only because we view this as an enjoyable hobby.<br />
<br />
Also, because we're such nice people, we'll let you view the Source, available [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/dl/taspring_0.63b1_src.zip here], so you can help in making this game better than it already is (as though that were possible).<br />
<br />
===I read all that and I still want to donate.===<br />
Very well then! You can find the required details [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/donate.php here]. It will be much appreciated. :)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Technical==<br />
<br />
===What port numbers does Spring use?===<br />
Game uses port 8452 UDP by default, which can be changed in the lobby. If you are behind a router, make sure you forward the correct port first and also make sure firewall is not blocking it, or else you won't be able to host games (you will still be able to join others games though).<br />
<br />
Not anymore. Now you usually don't ever need to forward anything.<br />
<br />
===What APIs does Spring use?===<br />
The Windows version of the program (which one might call the official version, or at this point, simply the working version :) ) uses: OpenGL for rendering, DirectSound for sound, and Winsock for networking.<br />
<br />
The Linux port (more info below) will use SDL/OpenGL for rendering, OpenAL for sound (which will connect to DirectSound on Windows and OSS or ALSA on Linux), BSD sockets for networking.<br />
<br />
===What language is Spring written in?===<br />
The spring game engine is written in C and C++. The Windows lobby client is written in Delphi, the lobby server is java. Another portable lobby is being made in Python.<br />
<br />
===Is Spring open source?===<br />
Yes, it is. Go to the [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/download.php downloads] section of the site to download the source code.<br />
<br />
<br />
===Is there any documentation for the source code===<br />
Yes, doxygen is used to automatically generate the [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/doxygen/ documentation]<br />
<br />
==Requirements==<br />
<br />
===What platforms will Spring run on?===<br />
At the moment, it only runs on Windows.<br />
Members of the community are working on porting the game to the Linux platform.<br />
This will make the code more portable so if someone wants to port it to another platform please contact us.<br />
We (the Sy) will not, however, port it ourselves at any time (in the foreseeable future). There is simply no compelling reason for us to do so. Additionally, we would like to focus on getting it to work well.<br />
<br />
===What sort of a system will I need to run Spring?===<br />
You will most certainly need a 3D graphics card to run Spring, which will probably require at least a GeForce3 (note that a GeForce4 MX is not better than a GeForce3) and the latest driver supported. Minimum CPU requirements are a little more complex. A more powerful CPU will have the capability to support larger maps and a greater maximum unit limit. A 1 GHz CPU should be able to support an estimated 500 units. The needed memory will also vary with unit count and map size, but 512 MB should be enough. However, 1024MB you should already have, so it'll run fine.<br />
<br />
===Spring says I need the GL_ARB_texture_env_combine extension, what can I do?===<br />
If you encounter the error "Needed extension GL_ARB_texture_env_combine not found", this means that your video card driver does not support GL_ARB_texture_env_combine. You can try downloading a new video driver from the manufacturers website ([www.ati.com], [www.nvidia.com], ...) If this doesn't solve the problem then your video hardware is too old to support the extension. Buy a new video card.<br />
<br />
EDIT: I am also having this problem with the geoforce 6800 ultra and I have the latest drivers.<br />
<br />
REQUEST : please name some working and non-working 3D video cards. please give a value for minimum video memory : 32 Mo ? 64 Mo ?<br />
<br />
List of video cards supposingly supporting GL_ARB_texture_env_combine :<br />
<br />
http://www.delphi3d.net/hardware/extsupport.php?extension=GL_ARB_texture_env_combine<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Spring works in full screen,but cncounters the error "Needed extension GL_ARB_texture_env_combine not found" when i try to run spring.exe in window<br />
<br />
==Content==<br />
<br />
===Do Spring maps need a "ground"?===<br />
Spring maps do require a ground. We have had many requests to have space maps, however, a "true" (ala Homeworld) space setting is not likely. It would have to wait until a much later stage. This does not mean that TA's style of "space" maps won't be possible, (see the Final Frontier TC for examples of this).<br />
<br />
===You stated that Spring uses the TA unit format.===<br />
Spring does use the Total Annihilation unit format. However, we do plan to make Spring compatible with a custom unit format of our own design.<br />
<br />
===How powerful will Spring's custom format be?===<br />
Total Annihilation's unit format was extremely limited. Most of these limitations will either be expanded or non-existent in Spring's custom unit format. One of the most exciting improvements is the introduction of an entirely new method of scripting, with nearly complete control over every aspect of a unit's actions and behaviors.<br />
<br />
===Does Spring have a limited number of weapons?===<br />
No. Unlike Total Annihilation, Spring's weapon IDs will be unlimited. Meaning it will be possible to add as many third-party units as you want. However, the current model format limits 16 weapons to each unit.<br />
<br />
===Does Spring have a limited number of unique units?===<br />
No. Unit IDs, like weapon IDs, will be unlimited.<br />
<br />
===Will units have a maximum of 3 unique weapons?===<br />
Total Annihilation had a limitation that permitted a maximum of 3 unique weapons per unit. Spring currently has a way to have 16 weapons per unit. (Replace Primary, Secondary, Tertiary by 1 2 3 ...16). More can be made possible by modifying the source if there's a sufficient demand by mod makers.<br />
<br />
===I'm curious as to the per-unit polygon limit.===<br />
The engine itself does not have a polygon count limit. The limit is that of the processing power of today's computers. Since Spring requires a 3D card, the maximum polygon count per unit will be several times higher than Total Annihilation's. No real numbers yet though. We're gonna leave it up to the mod community to figure that one out.<br />
<br />
===Will units be able to perform basic terraforming?===<br />
Total Annihilation units probably won't have any terrain editable functionality. Future units may be endowed with such functionality, but it's more of a gameplay issue and has not been decided upon yet. However construction units can restore ground.<br />
<br />
===Will tunnel building be possible?===<br />
Subterranean areas of any sort is impossible. However, it is possible to heavily deform the ground with explosives.. Which is great fun!<br />
<br />
===Will the ground's water retention be editable?===<br />
No. Water will always collect when a piece of land has a height below sea level.<br />
<br />
===Does Spring have a limit on the number of races?===<br />
Spring has no limit on the total number of sides/races.<br />
<br />
===What are the sizes of the biggest and smallest units?===<br />
Static units (buildings, defenses, etc.) have no size limitations in the engine. Technically, neither do mobile units, but units with a footprint larger than 4x4 "squares" (an arbitrary size standard created by Cavedog) might have problems pathfinding.<br />
<br />
===What is going to be the maximum possible sea depth?===<br />
For all practical purposes, it will be unlimited. The depth values are stored as "float variables", so it is doubtful that maps would ever be made which even come close to approaching the limit.<br />
<br />
===Will Spring support campaigns?===<br />
Basic Map scripting has been implemented, using a Lua scripting engine. From that, it would be possible to make a basic campain, but for ease of use a better way of selecting scripts and an improved Single player menu is needed.<br />
<br />
===How big will the Spring files be?===<br />
Spring will be as small as however much content is included with it. The "essential" files (engine files mostly) will only be several megabytes large. Content (such as maps and units) will add considerable size to the Spring download. However, it is not known at this point just how much "content" will be included with the first release.<br />
<br />
Currently, the file size is roughly 40 MB.<br />
<br />
===How will Spring render sound effects?===<br />
Sound is rendered 3D, meaning that the volume and direction (assuming a multi-speaker setup) vary with the location of the camera from the sound "emitter". What this translates into gameplay terms means that the closer you are to a unit making a sound or motion, the louder the sound will be. Additionally, the sound will be heard differently depending on which way the camera is facing relative to units making sound.<br />
<br />
===Will Spring have ambient sound?===<br />
There is no ambient sound, and we haven't planned on adding it thus far.<br />
<br />
===Will there be an AI or a "skirmish" mode?===<br />
We have created an interface for AI's, and two are currently under development. In the meantime, the spawn script included in the latest version exists as a text file in the Spring folder, and can be modified by any text editor such as MS Notepad, for your particular play style, or mod.<br />
<br />
===Will a "possess" or a FPS option be present?===<br />
Yes, it is possible to fully control a unit from the first person view. It is more of a gimmick, but it still allows for a nice diversion once in a while.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Getting into a game==<br />
<br />
===People talk about 'Single Player'. How do I start a single player game?===<br />
Go into your Spring folder and find the 'Spring.exe' file. Double click on it and say 'yes' to host.<br />
<br />
===When I try to make a single player game, it gives me an error.===<br />
Your graphics card probably can't support Spring. If you read the requirements it did say GeForce 3 or better. Go to the settings file in your Spring directory and lower some of the options. Sometimes that works.<br />
<br />
===Does Spring support AI Players?===<br />
Yes, see [[AI]] You can also use the [[random_enemies]] script, which spawns units out of thin air and sends them to attack you.<br />
<br />
===When I try to connect to the lobby it gives me an error.===<br />
There could be 3 problems. Either you don't have an account, the server is down, or you have not configured your router/firewall correctly. If you don't have an account, make one. If the server is down, you'll just have to wait (this doesn't happen often, though). If you have a router/firewall read below. Have a look at this website's News page and/or the Messageboard, it is likely that you will get some information there in the eventuality that the server is down.<br />
<br />
Also make sure that you don't have any spaces in your username.<br />
<br />
===I have a router and I don't seem to be able to get a game===<br />
<br />
If you are using a router you may have other problems. Explanations of [http://www.portforward.com/routers.htm how to forward ports] has instructions for every router.<br />
<br />
===Where can I download more maps?===<br />
As for most Spring downloads [http://www.fileuniverse.com/?page=listing&ID=90 FileUniverse] is the place to be! A collection of maps can be downloaded [http://www.fileuniverse.com/?page=listing&ID=91 here].<br />
<br />
===I used the small installer where can I get the missing maps?===<br />
Unfortunately the maps included in the regular installer (0.51b1) aren't available on File Universe. However, since many of the scripts included in the game rely on map4, this can be downloaded [http://taspring.clan-sy.com/dl/map4.7z here].<br />
<br />
===How do I install downloaded maps?===<br />
Most maps are released as .sdz or .sd7 files. These can be put directly into the "maps" folder inside the Spring folder. If they are compressed into another type of archive you will have to unpack them first. Just unzip them into your spring maps folder. Some map files use newer (smaller) file formats such as .rar or .7z, to unzip these newer formats, you'll need to download 7-Zip [http://www.7-zip.org/ http://www.7-zip.org/] or Zip-genius [http://downloads.zipgenius.it/ http://downloads.zipgenius.it/]. They both handle almost all formats and are totally free. There is also now a map browser in the TASClient lobby software, click the more maps button in a battle screen to access it.<br />
<br />
===Sometimes when I try to join games it gives me an error.===<br />
The host is behind a firewall that has not opened the correct ports for Spring.<br />
<br />
===When I make games nobody joins.===<br />
You are probably behind a firewall. See question above.<br />
<br />
===When a multiplayer game starts I never make it past the loading screen.===<br />
This indicates a problem with your video card. Once again the best way to deal with this situation is to make sure your video card has the latest driver updates and that all Spring video features are on the lowest settings.<br />
<br />
===When a multiplayer game starts, I make it past the loading screen, but when I get into the game it says, "Waiting for Host", and does a 10 second countdown. It always reaches zero and boots me out, what gives?===<br />
This is a firewall issue. There are three things you can do to fix this. First, make sure your windows firewall is either off, or is not blocking the TA: Spring application. Secondly, if you are behind a router, you can forward the ports that the host is using (especially if you are the host), and it usually fixes the problem. To do this you must go to your router configuration page. You can see what port 'you' are using (as the host), by hosting a multiplayer game in the Spring Lobby. You must make this your trigger port, and make sure that it is open for both TCP and UDP. Thirdly, if none of the aforementioned worked. The easiest thing to do (assuming you are behind a router) is to set the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone). This means your computer will be completely exposed to the internet, which will make you vulnerable to any unknown or unpatched exploits in windows. All you have to do is find the personal IP if the computer you are using and add it to your router's DMZ list. Please only try this last option if you can't get the others to work.<br />
Good Luck<br />
<br />
===I got into the game, but some people didn't.===<br />
The host may have reached the number of players it has set.<br />
Or the players may be experiencing firewall or video card difficulty. That is not your fault. Please ask them too leave if they are still there when you get into the 'game lobby'.<br />
<br />
===I got into a game but my name is red, nobody can hear me speak, and eventually I get disconnected===<br />
This is to do with how long it takes the game to start up (the "load time"). If it takes too long you will see this problem. The load time can be reduced by changing the game graphics settings to lower quality. In particular try setting texture quality to lowest.<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Playing==<br />
<br />
===What is with this weird right-click mode? I'm 'bout to break my keyboard.===<br />
Sorry, you'll just have to get used to it. As of now it can't be changed.<br />
<br />
===Why is somebody else also controlling my units?===<br />
In the 'game lobby' there are two sets of teams. There are the 'Teams' and the 'Ally Teams'. If you are on the same 'Team', then you both get the same commander, and can control the same units. If you are on 'Ally Teams', then you both get different commanders and can't control each others units.<br />
<br />
===Then why would I want to be on the same 'Team' as somebody?===<br />
Because it's fun to just drive around units and not have to worry about commanding. (Assuming that one of the people on the team is commanding.)<br />
<br />
===How do I talk to my allies only?===<br />
You must type 'a:' before you speak. Here's an example: a: Now I am talking to my allies only.<br><br />
And most important, you can split tasks, as base building, troops managment.<br />
<br />
===Help! After I'm finished driving a unit, the camera is all insane! This is nuts! How do I fix it?===<br />
Whoa now. Calm down. Just press ctrl + mouse button 3 to change camera modes. If your unit is destroyed in FPS mode, you will stay in FPS mode until you change camera modes. Also, the camera will stay in "free look" when FPS mode is disengaged, press middle-mouse or J to switch to normal scrolling.<br />
<br />
===After I'm finished driving a unit, where what used to be my mouse pointer is now a crosshair. Why?===<br />
-This is a special 'view mode' that allows you to move around the screen much faster. It's good for viewing the battle or getting screenshots. Simply press on your third mouse button to revert back to your mouse pointer.<br />
<br />
===But I don't have a third mouse button!===<br />
The key 'J' works in the same way as the 'middle mouse button' does. So where you would use ctrl + middle mouse button to change camera modes, ctrl + j does the same thing. Pressing J once will also switch you from 'crosshair mode' to 'pointer mode' and vice versa.<br />
<br />
===When I start a game, I am stuck in this weird camera mode and my perspective is all messed up. How do I switch to the overhead (OTA style) camera?===<br />
This happens when you start a single player game or when the host uses force start. Shift+Backspace (or Shift+J or Shift+MiddleMouseClick) switches between the fps style, total war style and OTA style cameras. Use it to get your camera back to normal in this situation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===People are cheating! How do I stop it?!===<br />
Well currently, you can't.<br />
<br />
Only the host can "activate" the cheat codes. After that, any player can do almost all cheats.<br />
<br />
The best thing to do is just not play with the cheaters anymore. But with new spring version cheats are disabled in multiplayer, so that paragraph is hopefully now irrelevant.<br />
<br />
===Well how do you cheat?===<br />
<br />
<table border="3" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><br />
<br />
<tr><th>Cheat Command</th><th>Effect</th></tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>'''.cheat'''</td><td>'''enable cheats - Cheats don't work in multiplayer until the host types this'''</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.nocost</td><td>instabuild (doesn't work on things already under construction, only on new ones)</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.setmaxspeed 50</td><td>Changes the maximum speed multiplier (default is 3.0)</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.setminspeed 0</td><td>Changes the minimum speed multiplier (default is 0.3)</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.spectator</td><td>Allows you to see the entire map... but you lose control of your units</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.team 0, .team 1, etc.</td><td>Change player</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.give ARMCOM, .give 10 CORKROG, etc.</td><td>Place 1 or specified number of specified unit. Valid units are the internal names of units as specified in the unit definition.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
===In Game Commands===<br />
The following ''non-cheating'' commands are also available in game:<br />
<br />
<table border="3" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0"><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<th>Command</th><th>Effect</th><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.info</td><td>Shows you what colour each player is and their ping delay in the bottom left corner of the screen</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.clock</td><td>Shows you the elapsed game time in minutes and seconds in the bottom left corner of the screen</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<td>.take</td><td>Pulls all allied units, that are owned by players who have lost connection to the server, to your team.</td><br />
</tr><br />
<br />
</table><br />
<br />
===How do I ally or unally in game?===<br />
I'm pretty sure you can't. Yet.<br />
<br />
===How do I give somebody units or metal or energy?===<br />
Press the 'H' key. Then select the amount of metal and/or energy to share. Then select the receiving player and press OK.<br />
<br />
When sharing units, you must first select the units to share, then press 'H' key. Tick share units checkbox and choose a receiving player.<br />
<br />
===How do I continually give somebody metal and/or energy after a certain point (i.e. Original TA commands +setshare..., +shareall)?===<br />
You'll notice that on your metal and energy bars (top of screen), there are two red bars. You have to put them wherever you want your metal and energy to be shared after.<br />
<br />
===This game is different than TA, the units HP and damage are not the same===<br />
<br />
There were several third party "balance" mods for the original TA game.<br />
<br />
One of those mods were xTA, and was developed by the same clan (SY) that has brought life back to TA, making Spring.<br />
<br />
This balance mod is what is bundled by default with the spring engine, and is the mod that was ready to play when spring was released.<br />
<br />
Now are several mods available, install the mod of your choice.<br />
<br />
[http://www.fileuniverse.com/?p=listing&ID=92 get mods here]<br />
<br />
===XTA? OTA? AA? OMFGLAMO? What those all the abbreviations mean?===<br />
zwzsg maintains a handy dandy FAQ about TA, and the abbreviations that relate to Spring too, of course.<br />
[http://www.tauniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27309 click here]. See also the Spring [[Glossary]], which contains brief explanations for all non-standard words and phrases.<br />
<br />
===Why am I destroyed so easily by long range assaults?===<br />
This is a realistic feature of Spring. Units will automatically attack 'radar blips' (units that they can not actually see, but that are indicated on radar). However, the accuracy is very bad while shooting at radar blips until:<br />
* Your unit kills a lot of units and gets experience<br />
* You get a targeting facility.<br />
<br />
===Can I kick people from my 'game lobby' or my game?===<br />
First of all, you have to be the host to kick. Use the good old ".kick playernamehere" command. Works in-game too, use it wisely.<br />
<br />
===When I'm 'driving' my commander, why can't I use my laser?===<br />
The TA: Spring team will most likely add a way for you to use your commander's laser soon.<br />
<br />
===I hate driving around with the 'arrow keys'. Is there any way I can use the 'W-A-S-D' controls (the controls most First Person Shooters use) anymore?===<br />
Go into your Spring directory and edit the uikeys file. Keep in mind that 'S' is originally a 'hot-key' that will stop your units and that 'D' is a 'hot-key' for your commander's D-Gun. You might want to change those too.<br />
<br />
===I turned the shadows feature on; I still don't see shadows. What gives?===<br />
Your graphics card can't handle shadows, so Spring automatically turns them off.<br />
<br />
===I can't go backwards when I am 'driving' a unit. Why not?===<br />
Because TA units were never intended to go backwards. Sorry, but you just cant.<br />
<br />
===I'm in an Unreal Tournament kind of mood. How do I strafe?===<br />
You can only strafe in 'brawler type' ships, such as the brawler, rapier, and light gunships.<br />
<br />
===How can I record and watch demos/replays?=== <br />
From version 0.62 onwards recordings of all the games you play are easily available for replay via the Replays button in the TASclient.<br />
<br />
You can use the Speed up/Slow down game keys while watching the replay, along with other in-game commands like .team<br />
<br />
From version 0.60b1 onwards, demos are automatically recorded in the "demos" folder, underneath your Spring folder (default is C:\Program Files\TASpring\demos), named for the date and map they were played on. If you play multiple games in the same day on the same map, the games will also be numbered to prevent them from overwriting each other.<br />
<br />
From version 0.62 onwards, to view a demo from the Windows file manager you can just double click the file name. For versions 0,60 and 0.61, to view a demo start spring.exe as non server and enter the full demo name as server address ("050803-Ashpen-0.60b1.sdf" for example). Note that you don't need to enter the "demos" folder name. Due to the large font, you will find that the name is too big to fit on the screen. If you're confident typing blind from memory, that's OK. Otherwise go into windows explorer, select the demo file you want, press F2, Ctrl-C, and do Ctrl-V to paste it into the server address.<br />
<br />
For versions prior to 0.60b1, the game was always recorded to test.sdf which is overwritten by each new game, so the name had to be changed by hand if you wanted to save it. You had to use a name other than test.sdf to view a demo.<br />
<br />
===Sometimes when I play get "not sync" "delayed synch" errors===<br />
<br />
Thats caused because of lag. One of the players in the game is having some lag issues. Ask him/her to free up its bandwidth for the game to use.<br />
<br />
Alternatively you can use the pause key and wait till the connection gets more stable.<br />
<br />
Lag is the seccond number showed when you use the .info command ingame, numbers bigger than 40 are not usual in a normal game and are a signal of lag.<br />
<br />
==Creating Content for Spring==<br />
===How do I create maps?===<br />
See the [[Maps]] page for all the map info.<br />
<br />
===How do I create units/mods?===<br />
See the [[Unit Development]] or the [[Mod Development]] page on creating units.<br />
<br />
==Troubleshooting==</div>Lindir The Green