Trivia, an observation about timing, RTS v. TB strategy.
full name
real time strategy game. In an untimed game of chess, your opponent
can move too slowly. In real time strategy, your opponent can move
too quickly. There is no lower or upper limit, respectively, to
either of those annoyances. The solution to the chess problem was the
introduction of the chess clock. So. Maybe game speed is not the
problem with real time strategy. Maybe game speed is an integral part
of the game, unable to be used as a limitting factor. Maybe real time
strategy just needs a clock.
:o)
--
Real Timed Strategy Gaming
http://pages.prodigy.net/logicshaping
mbe...@satx.rr.com
"A computer in every home - mine, all mine!"
eric leaf
"full name" <em...@address.com> wrote in message
> either of those annoyances. The solution to the chess problem was the
> introduction of the chess clock. So. Maybe game speed is not the
> problem with real time strategy. Maybe game speed is an integral part
> of the game, unable to be used as a limitting factor. Maybe real time
> strategy just needs a clock.
How did the clock solve the lower bound in chess? It didn't or shouldn't.
Why should the lower bound be "solved" in RTS?
Personally (and this is address your other post) I think there is too much
metaphor in RTS already, too much inconsequent difference that doesn't
amount to any interestings situations. Give me some real landscape pressures
and then we can say game-war is only 4000 years behind modern minds.
Your suggestion of plan changes will only penalize the quick thinking or the
one who plays by the seat of his pants compared to the long term strategist.
And you will then be in the same situation as now, except it will be
reversed. Also I see no ingame reason for it, that is especially if you are
running around with modern equipment. Radio communication was and is useful
for the military for one simple reason, its fast, faster than sending the
boy on a horse galloping into the sunset. If you think you can simulate
conditions of-olden-times with that system, I still disagree. A time delay
between order given and order followed may make sense, but within reason I
can have minute by minute updates of the frontline by employing more
message-runners. Its just that the minute by minute is hours or weeks old.
Imagine a situation where you've spent all your plan changes and then just
realize that you have blundered into some sort of elaborate trap. You could
do nothing but watch it unfold, why? Because you have designed an inflexible
system on purpose to only allow an arbitrary limit of X plan changes. I
guess the radios in your world have expirations that are counted in uses.
Then add to that situation one where you are facing a wily and sly opponent,
at the same time you are also a good opponent. Feints, counter feints,
elaborate multifaceted strategies, that unfortunately force you both to
expend all your plan changes midway during the battle. Oh well, now we watch
the AI play out our latest plans. At this point the users wonder why didn't
they just play Flip the Coin and Guess the Side(TM) - now with more
randomness.
[Oh yeah Mr Name at address.com, despite such originality, headers trimmed]
Gerry Quinn
>Imagine a situation where you've spent all your plan changes and then just
>realize that you have blundered into some sort of elaborate trap. You could
>do nothing but watch it unfold, why? Because you have designed an inflexible
>system on purpose to only allow an arbitrary limit of X plan changes.
Because you have played carelessly (or taken a calculated risk that
didn't come off).
Imagine a situation in Civ where you enter a hut near your only city
and get barbarians that will destroy your city. Is that a flaw in Civ?
No, it just means you are a bad player, placing poor bets.
>I
>guess the radios in your world have expirations that are counted in uses.
>Then add to that situation one where you are facing a wily and sly opponent,
>at the same time you are also a good opponent. Feints, counter feints,
>elaborate multifaceted strategies, that unfortunately force you both to
>expend all your plan changes midway during the battle. Oh well, now we watch
>the AI play out our latest plans. At this point the users wonder why didn't
>they just play Flip the Coin and Guess the Side(TM) - now with more
>randomness.
Part of the game - maybe one side should have conserved an extra option.
Just like time trouble in chess. (And just like time trouble, the
situation can be ameliorated by good design, e.g. by allowing a trickle
of action points to come through continuously.)
There are plenty of games for fast clickers, a few games for strategists
would be good.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
eric leaf
news:SeiQ8.2461$vB.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <OWeQ8.1466$_r6.106...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, "eric
leaf" <ericleaf_DEL@DEL_pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Imagine a situation where you've spent all your plan changes and then
just
> >realize that you have blundered into some sort of elaborate trap. You
could
> >do nothing but watch it unfold, why? Because you have designed an
inflexible
> >system on purpose to only allow an arbitrary limit of X plan changes.
>
> Because you have played carelessly (or taken a calculated risk that
> didn't come off).
>
> Imagine a situation in Civ where you enter a hut near your only city
> and get barbarians that will destroy your city. Is that a flaw in Civ?
> No, it just means you are a bad player, placing poor bets.
I don't see that example as being similar to what was suggested. In my mind
war, and war in games are largly dependent on information. Good generals
have the ability to outwit their opponent, how they do that is create the
missing information based on experience and knowledge (and conversly,
mislead the enemy and its information gathering). I don't see all your
buildings and troops, but based on what knowledge I do have I can fill in
the blanks. My opponents skill and my own will determine how accurate those
blanks are.
The real action or heroics of those games is that when I gain very accurate
information (ie I approach your base and see more of what you have) I can
then make better descisions, or adjust my planning based on the real
situation.
On another note, that *is* a flaw in civ, there is never any heroics or
expediency, and thats also why I think this plan idea is no good. If by
error on my part I unleashed some barbarians near an undefended city, I
can't rush troops from another region, that is force march or whatever. I
have to stare at the inevitable sacking of my city.
There is no reasonable risk in that situation, I can't accurately predict
the outcome and I can't do any actions to gain more information (about the
hut) so I never know what may come out. And because of that I must always
prepare for a barbarian to come or the worst case.
This same situation arises with opponent citys (and anywhere else) as well,
(since spying wasn't invented until the modern times?!?) I see whatever unit
is on top of a stack, and have no way until much later in the game to even
know what sort of force I am facing. So in almost every situation I can
predict zero knowledge about the situation, there could be one horseman on
that square or a thousand, which to me is so silly that it approachs the
absurd.
So there is no war strategy skill in civ, at all. Don't use it for
comparison because it will always fail when tested, use starcraft or
something.
> Part of the game - maybe one side should have conserved an extra option.
> Just like time trouble in chess. (And just like time trouble, the
> situation can be ameliorated by good design, e.g. by allowing a trickle
> of action points to come through continuously.)
If you made a system like that then obviously people would conserve an
option, to retreat. But at its heart its unflexible, and doesn't solve the
problem that this person saw. Facing a skilled opponent, I would quickly
burn thru plan changes, and so would my opponent if we were matched, *that*
is where the enjoyment comes from, yet you say you want to limit that to a
set X number. I see that merely as foolishness. I don't think comparisons to
chess are valid, chess is a simplification of war, and with 100% accurate
information. Those two things predominately split it forever from real
analogy when talking about war and games that simulate war.
Also the trickle of action points *is* already what exists in all of these
turn based games. Your action points are one every turn, and you will
continue to get one as long as your opponent is alive. Nothing new, don't
treat it as such.
So in summary, the plan suggestion is basically, make a real time strategy
game into a turn based strategy, but abstractly using plan changes instead
of turns.
A real possible solution is to remove the micromanagement altogether and use
a plan based interface, you train your marines, but once they are in the
field they are on their own that is once given orders.
You give them orders based on your overall strategic plan, but the specifics
of how they play out will be based on the unit themselves and the
opposition. It could be as simple as march to hill A, then move east
attacking major targets, join up with platoon D once you enter sector b6.
But there is still no limit on plan changes, you can radio in new
information you have recieved from other areas instantly, and either you or
the units themselves can make use of that.
For instance you know your enemy has a troops of 20 Blarg Tanks, and you
expected to see them guarding the airbase on the east of Blah River, your
troops and air don't see them, so you relay that information to previously
mentioned marines and then they can bring the tank killer troops closer to
the front incase they see the tanks themselves. Thats just a simple case,
there are infitite variety in that respect, and that is what you wish to
limit.
full name
<ericleaf_DEL@DEL_pacbell.net> wrote:
Thanks for the first real UseNet discussion of the idea (Richard
Hutnik by e-mail). Thank-you very much.
>"full name" <em...@address.com> wrote in message
>> either of those annoyances. The solution to the chess problem was the
>> introduction of the chess clock. So. Maybe game speed is not the
>> problem with real time strategy. Maybe game speed is an integral part
>> of the game, unable to be used as a limitting factor. Maybe real time
>> strategy just needs a clock.
>
>How did the clock solve the lower bound in chess?
The chess clock requires moving in a certain amount of time.
FWIW, I designed and built several very different styles of chess
clocks before converting to real time strategy.
>It didn't or shouldn't.
>Why should the lower bound be "solved" in RTS?
Because the clicking easily overwhelms the strategy. But I wont argue
that, it is already very well argued.
>
>Personally (and this is address your other post) I think there is too much
>metaphor in RTS already, too much inconsequent difference that doesn't
>amount to any interestings situations.
You might be very surprised at the depth of strategy underneath the
clickfest.
>Give me some real landscape pressures
>and then we can say game-war is only 4000 years behind modern minds.
>
>Your suggestion of plan changes will only penalize the quick thinking or the
>one who plays by the seat of his pants compared to the long term strategist.
>And you will then be in the same situation as now, except it will be
>reversed.
That is controlled by the clock.
>Also I see no ingame reason for it, that is especially if you are
>running around with modern equipment. Radio communication was and is useful
>for the military for one simple reason, its fast, faster than sending the
>boy on a horse galloping into the sunset. If you think you can simulate
>conditions of-olden-times with that system, I still disagree. A time delay
>between order given and order followed may make sense, but within reason I
>can have minute by minute updates of the frontline by employing more
>message-runners. Its just that the minute by minute is hours or weeks old.
>
>Imagine a situation where you've spent all your plan changes and then just
>realize that you have blundered into some sort of elaborate trap. You could
>do nothing but watch it unfold, why? Because you have designed an inflexible
>system on purpose to only allow an arbitrary limit of X plan changes.
But the system is perfectly flexible. I have updated my page to show
at least three variations on clocked play. And you can do the
clickfest without the clock if you want.
>I guess the radios in your world have expirations that are counted in uses.
That is correct. I have no ready made excuse for that. Perhaps you
can analogize it to leaders having some sort of limit on their ability
to make multiple plans. Or you can say it is because troops do not
respond well to being jerked all over the place. Or, just consider
the lack of reason part of the price for turning the genre into a
thinking man's game. If you do not like that, you can always play a
fast clocked game or play a game without a clock.
>Then add to that situation one where you are facing a wily and sly opponent,
>at the same time you are also a good opponent. Feints, counter feints,
>elaborate multifaceted strategies, that unfortunately force you both to
>expend all your plan changes midway during the battle. Oh well, now we watch
>the AI play out our latest plans. <snip>
They would go into the next time period, gaining however many changes
the next time period allows. If that problem were chronic, you would
simply increase the number of times each player is allowed to issue
orders during the first period. Again, I have updated my page to show
at least three variations on clocked play. At least one of the
variations would annihilate your concern.
Thanks very much for your open minded comments.
full name
wrote:
Thanks. Allowing real time strategy to entertain both might be fun.
>
>Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
>
>turn based games. Your action points are one every turn, and you will
>continue to get one as long as your opponent is alive. Nothing new, don't
>treat it as such.
The difference is that you start with a bank of action points, and they
are restored at a trickle. In the standard RTS clikfest, you get action
points at a steady rate depending on your clicking skill.
>So in summary, the plan suggestion is basically, make a real time strategy
>game into a turn based strategy, but abstractly using plan changes instead
>of turns.
To a certain extent, yes - it provides a possible model for the virtues
of both conmtinuous and turn-based play, eliminating some of the major
flaws of both.
>A real possible solution is to remove the micromanagement altogether and use
>a plan based interface, you train your marines, but once they are in the
>field they are on their own that is once given orders.
>You give them orders based on your overall strategic plan, but the specifics
>of how they play out will be based on the unit themselves and the
>opposition. It could be as simple as march to hill A, then move east
>attacking major targets, join up with platoon D once you enter sector b6.
>But there is still no limit on plan changes, you can radio in new
>information you have recieved from other areas instantly, and either you or
>the units themselves can make use of that.
You were complaining about spies only arriving in modern times in Civ.
When do you think radio was invented? (I recall Powermonger, in which
there was no fog of war, but you had to send orders by carrier pigeon.
That could work well with the sort of model we are talking about.)
>For instance you know your enemy has a troops of 20 Blarg Tanks, and you
>expected to see them guarding the airbase on the east of Blah River, your
>troops and air don't see them, so you relay that information to previously
>mentioned marines and then they can bring the tank killer troops closer to
>the front incase they see the tanks themselves. Thats just a simple case,
>there are infitite variety in that respect, and that is what you wish to
>limit.
All games (all art in general) involve the imposition of limits.
full name
>>Also I see no ingame reason for it, that is especially if you are
>>running around with modern equipment. Radio communication was and is useful
>>for the military for one simple reason, its fast, faster than sending the
>>boy on a horse galloping into the sunset. If you think you can simulate
>>conditions of-olden-times with that system, I still disagree. A time delay
>>between order given and order followed may make sense, but within reason I
>>can have minute by minute updates of the frontline by employing more
>>message-runners. Its just that the minute by minute is hours or weeks old.
What if updated orders are issued in sets for reasons other than bad
or lagging communications.
eric leaf
>
> Because the clicking easily overwhelms the strategy. But I wont argue
> that, it is already very well argued.
> >
> >Personally (and this is address your other post) I think there is too
much
> >metaphor in RTS already, too much inconsequent difference that doesn't
> >amount to any interestings situations.
>
> You might be very surprised at the depth of strategy underneath the
> clickfest.
I think you are solving a problem that only exists because of other problems
within the genre. Why is the clickfest a successful tactic? Because the
individual units are hopelessly stupid without constant direction, remove
that problem and then the clickfest would disappear.
full name
<ericleaf_DEL@DEL_pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>"full name" <em...@address.com> wrote in message
>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 06:50:22 GMT, "eric leaf"
>> >Why should the lower bound be "solved" in RTS?
>>
>> Because the clicking easily overwhelms the strategy. But I wont argue
>> that, it is already very well argued.
>> >
>> >Personally (and this is address your other post) I think there is too
>much
>> >metaphor in RTS already, too much inconsequent difference that doesn't
>> >amount to any interestings situations.
>>
>> You might be very surprised at the depth of strategy underneath the
>> clickfest.
>
>I think you are solving a problem
Thanks :o)
that only exists because of other problems
>within the genre. Why is the clickfest a successful tactic? Because the
>individual units are hopelessly stupid without constant direction, remove
>that problem and then the clickfest would disappear.
>
>
>