Theory On Strategy

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.

Feel free to add stuff, but please refrain from deleting things that I have written.

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.

Almost every multiplayer strategy game involves figuring out what your opponent is going to do, and then reacting accordingly.

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 games with static rules, once the rules are theoretically perfectly analysed, all "Normal" strategy disapears.

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.

Balance in an RTS

This is sort of a Sun Tzu like list of all the different things an RTS must have to be balanced.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

That's all for now. Check back soon for additional stuff.