That basic infantry (riflemen, melee infantry, etc) are good.
Tanks, cavalry and bombers being good practically happens on it's own and comes about as a matter of course, just give them high stats. It's when you give all soldiers types a role beyond early game chaff that you know the designers have actually thought things out.
AoM and AoE3 does this well with Hoplites and Musketeers. They're not the strongest units but they're the strongest per resource, able to slug it out with most units through sheer stats and numbers. Results in making a balanced army instead of ridiculous armies made entirely of crossbowmen and knights.
C&C Generals almost did it but there's so much anti-infantry in the game that rifle infantry don't have much of a combat role. Mini-gunners slay, though.
Civ flubs it by making their final upgrade put them into an APC that does the fighting for them. But that's just an aesthetic problem.
i like being spoonfed decisions. in titles like Civ, MOO, you're basically reacting to events, environment, the colonists have landed, there's civil disorder, so you attend to these. there's a map to uncover, so you're producing explorers. no need to read wiki, watch tutorials, the learning is being informed by the game itself which guides you through the experience.
all the ground breaking titles had this quality SimCity, Civ, Dune 2, MOO, X-Com, Transport Tycoon, the marriage of mechanics and theme so perfect it fit like a glove, even playing for the first time.
the opposite for me would be games like Darkest Dungeon, GSG, where they just throw excel tables at you, and wish you good luck. it may be that i have small cranium, i don't know.
People think strategy is all about how simply moving units around and besting another player. Yet at its core, it isn't, its about dealing with uncertainty. Thats why the best strategy games have significant random elements, to create uncertainty. Panzer General (with Fantasy general), Steel Panthers, Atomic's V for Victory series, are the best examples. Most of the games people cite as "good strategy games" actually aren't strategy games at all. Chess is not a good "strategy game" neither is X-Com, starcraft or most RTS. They have their own strategy elements, but not games that require good understandings of probabilities and their effects on planning..
>Civ flubs it by making their final upgrade put them into an APC that does the fighting for them. But that's just an aesthetic problem.
Easily fixable with a mod that makes the strategic map piece an apc and the combat animations done by infantry but there's no excuse for why it wasn't like that to begin with
making a strategy game, currently writing these down
if it sucks then know that you are responsible
I am incapable of original thought. a CIA automaton animated by fluoride and cream soda. simply incredible
Meh, trying to turn the computer into a player doesn't work, so I'd say doing the opposite is more fun for singleplayer. It's best when the computer doesn't just play by different rules but plays a different game entirely. With that kind of engineered asymmetry in place, cheating and cheesing become a non-issue because the challenge doesn't hinge on the quality of AI.
Great point. I haven't thought much about that before. It'd be interesting if more strategy games were designed around this concept, a lot of them go for symmetry between players and AI and it fails almost always. Not sure how I'd implement it in 4x games and such though. Might be its own subgenre at that point....
Maybe mixing both approaches together – using player-like AI factions, but with gameplay relying more on non-player AI opposition – could result in something enjoyable in both singleplayer and multiplayer. But I'm not certain how that'd work in practice.
What would you have in mind?
Yeah, here are some games I played where these issues don't spoil the fun:
Mindustry - the meat of the game is designing and maintaining production lines while the enemy simply shows up in waves to thwart you. The same can be said about all sorts of city builders, colony survival roguelites, and assorted defense games.
Militia - a quick chess-like tactics game where you have to use only three pieces to defeat a superior and growing force that moves and attacks in a specific and predictable way. The fun is in thoughtful maneuvers and well-executed combos. It's free to play on Android, by the way.
Slice & Dice - while it looks like an RPG it sure requires solid short and long-term planning, and risk calculation. The enemies are stronger than your party but often flawed and they telegraph their attacks so if you manage your resources well, you have a fighting chance. Increasing the difficulty usually isn't about raising opponents stats but in providing quirkier problems to solve that require thinking outside the box.
Egypt: Old Kingdom - a somewhat simplistic 4X-ish game where your expansion is sometimes interrupted by so called trials that can each be beaten in several ways. The other tribes are rather basic and their behavior is largely governed by those trials. The difficulty can be increased by modifying various gameplay aspects.
Multiplayer. AI is babbies mode. Multiplayer keeps the game fresh for a long time even with zero input from the developer.
Responsiveness. When UI is snappy and smooth, when units react to your orders exactly as you want them to - this is when you actually play a strategy game.
Variety. If there's no variety in how to win, it's a puzzle game, not a strategy game.
what gets me hard and excited are games that simulate complex and self-contained worlds, in which i am just a singular actor and at least in theory practically not needed for history to keep going.
I had drawn up systems for a game of that type but never committed it to code. Something akin to standalone Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode, mostly premade content but with intensive world simulation. Didn't feel too inspired though, so I never put much effort in it (couldn't figure out how to make it interesting for the player).
I deeply hate strong rock-paper-scissor mechanics (AoE2), always invisible units that require special mechanics to be able to find and kill (Starcraft), too much focus on base management, and too many special abilities that need to be activated (Starcraft, Warcraft 3). I love Company of heroes due to the focus on tactics and less focus on base management, Dawn of war because it's pretty quick and action focused, and Supreme commander
I like Bookful: Girls with Guts cos it utilizes novel Augmented Reality technology to bring books and imagery to life in a real-world setting, integrating reading into an interactive and immersive experience.
Something like blitzkrieg and its derivatives. Infantry can dig in and hold themselves against attacks without the need of constant micromanagement. Most modern RTS are small scaled and fast paced so you only have this very limited cover-and-garrison system that forces you to babysit your troops from incoming damage
the essential elements of a strategy as far as i have noticed is that it heavily relies on UI and interface.
as such a good strategy game will have a responsive, intuitive, well designed UI.
a strategy game should provide you with a variety of tools and options to complete objectives. but it shouldnt be overbearing.
if the strategy depends on micromanagement then its should be as streamlined and as simple as possible.
being able to access alternate abilities and strategies shouldnt be a chore or frustrating.
otherwise strategy is really developed in terms of levels of complexity.
i think strategy games should also have good and well designed crunch and fluff.
immersion factor i think is very important or else it end up just rock paper sissors.
my favorite strategy games are responsive in their commads through well designed sound effects and graphic design and interaction.
the epicness of the story has to meet the special effects and supporting media via cinematics or cut scenes.
the best strategy games also establish straight forward goals with many ways to accomplish them.
the tools can also be developed ,easily used and offer a wide complexity when interacting with the user the environment and other in game objects and units.
>if the strategy depends on micromanagement then its should be as streamlined and as simple as possible.
I don't know, isn't Brood War pro scene all about wrestling with the game's mechanics such as bad pathfinding, or the tight limit for units in a group?
Awkward design in a sense provides many chances for raw mechanical skill to come into play, whereas games with superb QoL practically play themselves.
procedural generated maps with many options to choose from, like different biomes and such.
map editor
custom campaign editor
more than 3 factions to choose from
base building
bodies stay and rot to the bones
projectiles that can be dodged
can be modded
Also one of the best campaign styles for an rts is a turn-based conquest map similar to total war. DoW Dark Crusade is the best example. It's almost like an ideal RTS game for me because I don't really like playing against other people and it can have many hours of playtime and replayability in single player.
I don't really care much about a scripted campaign story in an RTS, I'm more of a sandbox player where I do what I want.
variety. I just love when games offer you a good bunch of factions, heroes and stuff. No matter if that lead to an imbalance nightmare I just have fun as a casual.
without a doubt, i like the einstein brain trainer because it was my first adventure in VR, it keeps my brain young and fresh
it still looks new and great, pretty to explain thou, I'd just say you try it out.
That basic infantry (riflemen, melee infantry, etc) are good.
Tanks, cavalry and bombers being good practically happens on it's own and comes about as a matter of course, just give them high stats. It's when you give all soldiers types a role beyond early game chaff that you know the designers have actually thought things out.
AoM and AoE3 does this well with Hoplites and Musketeers. They're not the strongest units but they're the strongest per resource, able to slug it out with most units through sheer stats and numbers. Results in making a balanced army instead of ridiculous armies made entirely of crossbowmen and knights.
C&C Generals almost did it but there's so much anti-infantry in the game that rifle infantry don't have much of a combat role. Mini-gunners slay, though.
Civ flubs it by making their final upgrade put them into an APC that does the fighting for them. But that's just an aesthetic problem.
i like being spoonfed decisions. in titles like Civ, MOO, you're basically reacting to events, environment, the colonists have landed, there's civil disorder, so you attend to these. there's a map to uncover, so you're producing explorers. no need to read wiki, watch tutorials, the learning is being informed by the game itself which guides you through the experience.
all the ground breaking titles had this quality SimCity, Civ, Dune 2, MOO, X-Com, Transport Tycoon, the marriage of mechanics and theme so perfect it fit like a glove, even playing for the first time.
the opposite for me would be games like Darkest Dungeon, GSG, where they just throw excel tables at you, and wish you good luck. it may be that i have small cranium, i don't know.
People think strategy is all about how simply moving units around and besting another player. Yet at its core, it isn't, its about dealing with uncertainty. Thats why the best strategy games have significant random elements, to create uncertainty. Panzer General (with Fantasy general), Steel Panthers, Atomic's V for Victory series, are the best examples. Most of the games people cite as "good strategy games" actually aren't strategy games at all. Chess is not a good "strategy game" neither is X-Com, starcraft or most RTS. They have their own strategy elements, but not games that require good understandings of probabilities and their effects on planning..
RNG is heavily conflicted with competitiveness.
Compgays and streamers ruining vidya as usual
Have you heard of sports before?
yeah, what about them?
Sports have extreme amounts of circumstance and randomness (or at least unpredictability). They put up with it
like?
Weather, illness, media, lighting, fans/crowd, how stiff the ball is. How the ball bounces, injury, etc.
at least half of these don't occur in standard matches.
Ok I can tell this is going no where. Sports are not predictable like computer games. No frick off.
>the best strategy games have significant random elements
>X-com is not a good strategy game
???
Do you mean that it's a tactics game?
>Civ flubs it by making their final upgrade put them into an APC that does the fighting for them. But that's just an aesthetic problem.
Easily fixable with a mod that makes the strategic map piece an apc and the combat animations done by infantry but there's no excuse for why it wasn't like that to begin with
Might be better if it was only an APC when moving so you can tell they're not a vehicle at a glance.
Those are the little things that make a good game great
make number go up
making a strategy game, currently writing these down
if it sucks then know that you are responsible
I am incapable of original thought. a CIA automaton animated by fluoride and cream soda. simply incredible
global zoom out
*slows down to 2fps and crashes*
I like cool unit synergies, like in Militia where you get to set up combos that clear half the floor.
Games where the AI plays by the same rules as the player. Too bad that there aren't too many of these types of games.
Play on normal, see how dumb the AI is.
Play against human players for gods sake
Meh, trying to turn the computer into a player doesn't work, so I'd say doing the opposite is more fun for singleplayer. It's best when the computer doesn't just play by different rules but plays a different game entirely. With that kind of engineered asymmetry in place, cheating and cheesing become a non-issue because the challenge doesn't hinge on the quality of AI.
Great point. I haven't thought much about that before. It'd be interesting if more strategy games were designed around this concept, a lot of them go for symmetry between players and AI and it fails almost always. Not sure how I'd implement it in 4x games and such though. Might be its own subgenre at that point....
Maybe mixing both approaches together – using player-like AI factions, but with gameplay relying more on non-player AI opposition – could result in something enjoyable in both singleplayer and multiplayer. But I'm not certain how that'd work in practice.
What would you have in mind?
Yeah, here are some games I played where these issues don't spoil the fun:
Mindustry - the meat of the game is designing and maintaining production lines while the enemy simply shows up in waves to thwart you. The same can be said about all sorts of city builders, colony survival roguelites, and assorted defense games.
Militia - a quick chess-like tactics game where you have to use only three pieces to defeat a superior and growing force that moves and attacks in a specific and predictable way. The fun is in thoughtful maneuvers and well-executed combos. It's free to play on Android, by the way.
Slice & Dice - while it looks like an RPG it sure requires solid short and long-term planning, and risk calculation. The enemies are stronger than your party but often flawed and they telegraph their attacks so if you manage your resources well, you have a fighting chance. Increasing the difficulty usually isn't about raising opponents stats but in providing quirkier problems to solve that require thinking outside the box.
Egypt: Old Kingdom - a somewhat simplistic 4X-ish game where your expansion is sometimes interrupted by so called trials that can each be beaten in several ways. The other tribes are rather basic and their behavior is largely governed by those trials. The difficulty can be increased by modifying various gameplay aspects.
Multiplayer. AI is babbies mode. Multiplayer keeps the game fresh for a long time even with zero input from the developer.
Responsiveness. When UI is snappy and smooth, when units react to your orders exactly as you want them to - this is when you actually play a strategy game.
Variety. If there's no variety in how to win, it's a puzzle game, not a strategy game.
what gets me hard and excited are games that simulate complex and self-contained worlds, in which i am just a singular actor and at least in theory practically not needed for history to keep going.
I had drawn up systems for a game of that type but never committed it to code. Something akin to standalone Dwarf Fortress Adventure Mode, mostly premade content but with intensive world simulation. Didn't feel too inspired though, so I never put much effort in it (couldn't figure out how to make it interesting for the player).
it has to be fun
I deeply hate strong rock-paper-scissor mechanics (AoE2), always invisible units that require special mechanics to be able to find and kill (Starcraft), too much focus on base management, and too many special abilities that need to be activated (Starcraft, Warcraft 3). I love Company of heroes due to the focus on tactics and less focus on base management, Dawn of war because it's pretty quick and action focused, and Supreme commander
I like Bookful: Girls with Guts cos it utilizes novel Augmented Reality technology to bring books and imagery to life in a real-world setting, integrating reading into an interactive and immersive experience.
Proper trench system for infantries, why is that so hard to make?
Any examples? I remember how some games like Men of War: Assault Squad 2 did it, but what would you consider ideal (or shit)?
Something like blitzkrieg and its derivatives. Infantry can dig in and hold themselves against attacks without the need of constant micromanagement. Most modern RTS are small scaled and fast paced so you only have this very limited cover-and-garrison system that forces you to babysit your troops from incoming damage
YWN have a trench managing simulator where your job is to keep your lot of boys happy and healthy before they're sent to die.
the essential elements of a strategy as far as i have noticed is that it heavily relies on UI and interface.
as such a good strategy game will have a responsive, intuitive, well designed UI.
a strategy game should provide you with a variety of tools and options to complete objectives. but it shouldnt be overbearing.
if the strategy depends on micromanagement then its should be as streamlined and as simple as possible.
being able to access alternate abilities and strategies shouldnt be a chore or frustrating.
otherwise strategy is really developed in terms of levels of complexity.
i think strategy games should also have good and well designed crunch and fluff.
immersion factor i think is very important or else it end up just rock paper sissors.
my favorite strategy games are responsive in their commads through well designed sound effects and graphic design and interaction.
the epicness of the story has to meet the special effects and supporting media via cinematics or cut scenes.
the best strategy games also establish straight forward goals with many ways to accomplish them.
the tools can also be developed ,easily used and offer a wide complexity when interacting with the user the environment and other in game objects and units.
>if the strategy depends on micromanagement then its should be as streamlined and as simple as possible.
I don't know, isn't Brood War pro scene all about wrestling with the game's mechanics such as bad pathfinding, or the tight limit for units in a group?
Awkward design in a sense provides many chances for raw mechanical skill to come into play, whereas games with superb QoL practically play themselves.
starcraft uses hotkeys
without putting much thought into it:
procedural generated maps with many options to choose from, like different biomes and such.
map editor
custom campaign editor
more than 3 factions to choose from
base building
bodies stay and rot to the bones
projectiles that can be dodged
can be modded
Also one of the best campaign styles for an rts is a turn-based conquest map similar to total war. DoW Dark Crusade is the best example. It's almost like an ideal RTS game for me because I don't really like playing against other people and it can have many hours of playtime and replayability in single player.
I don't really care much about a scripted campaign story in an RTS, I'm more of a sandbox player where I do what I want.
custom games
variety. I just love when games offer you a good bunch of factions, heroes and stuff. No matter if that lead to an imbalance nightmare I just have fun as a casual.
Age of Wonders 1 for the win.
without a doubt, i like the einstein brain trainer because it was my first adventure in VR, it keeps my brain young and fresh
it still looks new and great, pretty to explain thou, I'd just say you try it out.