Theory On Strategy

This is where I (Lindir The Green) will jot down all of my thoughts on strategy and strategy games.

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.

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.

Basics of Strategy

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.

In reality, strategy mostly requires observation.

In a game, strategy mostly requires logic and creativity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But some multiplayer board games also require diplomacy, which is just using social skills.

Magic the Gathering requires insane amounts of "normal" strategy, moderate amounts of diplomacy, and almost no "multiplayer" strategy.

Yu-Gi-Mon is like extremey watered sown Magic.

Strategy in Computer Games

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.

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.

Conter Strike is probably around 500x more complex.

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.

Most computer games, even if all the rules are known, require lots of observation to figure out how they all interact.

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.

The RTS

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:

• "Normal" Strategy
• "Multiplayer" Strategy
• Diplomacy
• H/E coordination
• Reflexes
• Multitasking skillz

But, like all computer games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears, for that map.

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.

more later...