Ideal Strategy game
Ideal Strategy game
The thread also can be asked as which properties of RTS games you enjoy, which not (like Aoe3, SC, chess, GO etc.) While it's certainly important the feeling and theme of a RTS (medieval in Aoe2, area contest in GO etc.) please focus on gameplay aspects of the subject.
For me, an ideal strategy game includes:
-real time strategy, feeling of tempo and time is cool
-low APM, focused on decision making (i dont enjoy micro in RTS games)
-Not a lot of calculative depth like Chess, but a lot of depth formed by intuition
-reactive, it is possible punish your oppenent's gameplay and vice versa resulting in fluid gameplay; without any gambles
-Adequate scouting and info about enemy but not crystall clear like board games, but more than aoe3 or aoe2 for example.
-0 luck and rng factor, relatively high complexity of gameplay in order to compensate it.
-equal conditions with enemy, (kinda means mirrors for aoe3 i guess?), but with a lot more options. (i think it is easier to add depth and complexity if you are in equal conditions; because there is no balance issue to consider between unequal conditions; like games of GO, chesss, while they are turned based an first-second player matters they have good depth.)
-as stated before, relatively higher complexity compared to other games to componsate both 0-luck and equal conditions to offer wide options of gameplay. (I find chess, GO, other 'rule' based games boring in terms of complexity, feeling like having 'few' options little color while they have a lot depth)
- and timings, in aoe3 i really enjoy big spikes, pop outs etc. game should make possible these kind of moments.
What is your ideal strategy game share your opinion!
@Goodspeed @Diarouga
For me, an ideal strategy game includes:
-real time strategy, feeling of tempo and time is cool
-low APM, focused on decision making (i dont enjoy micro in RTS games)
-Not a lot of calculative depth like Chess, but a lot of depth formed by intuition
-reactive, it is possible punish your oppenent's gameplay and vice versa resulting in fluid gameplay; without any gambles
-Adequate scouting and info about enemy but not crystall clear like board games, but more than aoe3 or aoe2 for example.
-0 luck and rng factor, relatively high complexity of gameplay in order to compensate it.
-equal conditions with enemy, (kinda means mirrors for aoe3 i guess?), but with a lot more options. (i think it is easier to add depth and complexity if you are in equal conditions; because there is no balance issue to consider between unequal conditions; like games of GO, chesss, while they are turned based an first-second player matters they have good depth.)
-as stated before, relatively higher complexity compared to other games to componsate both 0-luck and equal conditions to offer wide options of gameplay. (I find chess, GO, other 'rule' based games boring in terms of complexity, feeling like having 'few' options little color while they have a lot depth)
- and timings, in aoe3 i really enjoy big spikes, pop outs etc. game should make possible these kind of moments.
What is your ideal strategy game share your opinion!
@Goodspeed @Diarouga
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Why even tag Goodspeed, we all know his answer.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
he still can analyze GO, parts he like and doesnt like :)edeholland wrote:Why even tag Goodspeed, we all know his answer.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
I like having full or lots of knowledge, small to 0 amounts of luck and the ability to adapt fluidly to what your opponents do.
I don't like too many actions which don't involve thinking, and I'd rather have a mixture of calculation and intuition as I don't want to have to play a game forever to get enough intuition to be competitive.
I don't like too many actions which don't involve thinking, and I'd rather have a mixture of calculation and intuition as I don't want to have to play a game forever to get enough intuition to be competitive.
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: Ideal Strategy game
I think that's one of the things Go has over AoE3. It takes weeks of playing before you reasonably understand AoE3 and have fun figuring out the strategies and meta, the only exception is if you have played very similar games like SC and AoE before. In Go it feels like you are improving from the moment you fully understand the rules, which is after a few hours of playing.chris1089 wrote:I like having full or lots of knowledge, small to 0 amounts of luck and the ability to adapt fluidly to what your opponents do.
I don't like too many actions which don't involve thinking, and I'd rather have a mixture of calculation and intuition as I don't want to have to play a game forever to get enough intuition to be competitive.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Ideal Strategy game
1) The perfect strategy game doesn't need to be a real time strategy game. Real time makes it more fun to play, but most of the time it removes some strategy from the game. For instance, aoe3 and sc2 are not as complex as chess and go strategically.HUMMAN wrote:The thread also can be asked as which properties of RTS games you enjoy, which not (like Aoe3, SC, chess, GO etc.) While it's certainly important the feeling and theme of a RTS (medieval in Aoe2, area contest in GO etc.) please focus on gameplay aspects of the subject.
For me, an ideal strategy game includes:
-real time strategy, feeling of tempo and time is cool
-low APM, focused on decision making (i dont enjoy micro in RTS games)
-Not a lot of calculative depth like Chess, but a lot of depth formed by intuition
-reactive, it is possible punish your oppenent's gameplay and vice versa resulting in fluid gameplay; without any gambles
-Adequate scouting and info about enemy but not crystall clear like board games, but more than aoe3 or aoe2 for example.
-0 luck and rng factor, relatively high complexity of gameplay in order to compensate it.
-equal conditions with enemy, (kinda means mirrors for aoe3 i guess?), but with a lot more options. (i think it is easier to add depth and complexity if you are in equal conditions; because there is no balance issue to consider between unequal conditions; like games of GO, chesss, while they are turned based an first-second player matters they have good depth.)
-as stated before, relatively higher complexity compared to other games to componsate both 0-luck and equal conditions to offer wide options of gameplay. (I find chess, GO, other 'rule' based games boring in terms of complexity, feeling like having 'few' options little color while they have a lot depth)
- and timings, in aoe3 i really enjoy big spikes, pop outs etc. game should make possible these kind of moments.
What is your ideal strategy game share your opinion!
@Goodspeed @Diarouga
2) A pure strategy game shouldn't require a lot of APM, but RTS are more than just strategy games, and many people enjoy playing Starcraft II because it's hard to play strategically AND mechanically.
3) I think calculation is a must in a strategy game. Of course chess probably has too much calculation, but you need to anticipate your opponent's move, else the game is too easy.
4-5) If you don't have full info, then there's always going to be a part of gamble, you can't remove both. I think a full info strategy game is perfectly fine, but I agree that it should be easy enough to scout.
5) 0 RNG, agreed
6) Imo you dislike go and chess because they're not real time games, so they're less "fun", but it's unfair to say that you have less option. For instance, I feel like I have more options when I play a chess game than when I play a competitive aoe3 game.
7) Big spikes etc are what make a game "fun", it doesn't necessarily increase the strategy depth.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
2) Yeah people enjoy to improve mechanics skill but it should be as low as possible for me.
3) I like principles in chess( pawn structures, bishop pairs, corridors&castles) but at some point you have to just 'count' variants like a computer. There are also different chess play styles for ameteurs, (even for pros), i enjoy just attacking the king in mid-game. Game design orients how game turns out. Also you have memorize openings as chess is a precise calculatable game (openings grew from 10 moves to 25 moves ) Both Capablanca and Fisher saw this and offered new chess techniques.
4) The thing is you cant process all info anyway, so i dont agree that part. SO you should be able to get specific info you want somehow.
6) I can agree a chess game can have more options , the point by color i emphasise is they are limited. Think like that chess is a closed-game that variants can be calculated by humans and computers, but think an Aoe3 fight with 150 units, can human calculate positionss, combinations; i am not even sure a super computer can find perfect variant in such a fight. But you can fight just fine with infinite options, thats what i mean. bThe reason rule based games like chess is less 'fun' is beause they are absract, (you can just have fun controlling units playing vs. bots in aoe3 if you were a kid). The rts games have theme, fight, building, control feeling etc so they add the experience. It's why their complexity pay off and people learn, because people get interested in. But is possible to make a turned based game involves these qualities, why not.
7) Sure, but an ideal strategy game should be interesting and fun with gameplay i think. Think of a chess game design ends after 15 moves generally, like capablanca chess. Or a chess-board of 20x20 much larger with more depth. It is strategically more deep, but surely gameplay can be less fun. So design should follow to make a strategy game interesting, not necessarily more deep or complex.
3) I like principles in chess( pawn structures, bishop pairs, corridors&castles) but at some point you have to just 'count' variants like a computer. There are also different chess play styles for ameteurs, (even for pros), i enjoy just attacking the king in mid-game. Game design orients how game turns out. Also you have memorize openings as chess is a precise calculatable game (openings grew from 10 moves to 25 moves ) Both Capablanca and Fisher saw this and offered new chess techniques.
4) The thing is you cant process all info anyway, so i dont agree that part. SO you should be able to get specific info you want somehow.
6) I can agree a chess game can have more options , the point by color i emphasise is they are limited. Think like that chess is a closed-game that variants can be calculated by humans and computers, but think an Aoe3 fight with 150 units, can human calculate positionss, combinations; i am not even sure a super computer can find perfect variant in such a fight. But you can fight just fine with infinite options, thats what i mean. bThe reason rule based games like chess is less 'fun' is beause they are absract, (you can just have fun controlling units playing vs. bots in aoe3 if you were a kid). The rts games have theme, fight, building, control feeling etc so they add the experience. It's why their complexity pay off and people learn, because people get interested in. But is possible to make a turned based game involves these qualities, why not.
7) Sure, but an ideal strategy game should be interesting and fun with gameplay i think. Think of a chess game design ends after 15 moves generally, like capablanca chess. Or a chess-board of 20x20 much larger with more depth. It is strategically more deep, but surely gameplay can be less fun. So design should follow to make a strategy game interesting, not necessarily more deep or complex.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Xiangqi is my all time favourite strategy game (its known in the western world as "Chinese Chess"). It has exclusively defensive pieces, and much more variety in behavior of its game pieces in comparison to chess. The "cannon" can only attack by jumping over other pieces, the "elephant" cannot cross the river, pawns can move sideways, and the game begins much more open than the closed ranks of a chess board
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Ideal Strategy game
I read the title and thought this was gonna be another GS spam thread.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Go is the perfect game. It has no flaws. Simple rules, no RNG, near infinite depth, a healthy balance between intuition and calculation, no draws, etcetera.
If there are aliens out there, they almost certainly play Go.
If there are aliens out there, they almost certainly play Go.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Why is having no draws considered good?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Decisive games are more exciting. Have you followed top level chess recently? The last championship match was 12/12 draws until they decided it in tie breakers. Depressing stuff
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23505
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: Ideal Strategy game
If it's all ties yeah that's boring but I think an occasional draw can be exciting.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
- lemmings121
- Jaeger
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Mar 15, 2015
- ESO: lemmings121
Re: Ideal Strategy game
dansil92 wrote:Xiangqi is my all time favourite strategy game (its known in the western world as "Chinese Chess"). It has exclusively defensive pieces, and much more variety in behavior of its game pieces in comparison to chess. The "cannon" can only attack by jumping over other pieces, the "elephant" cannot cross the river, pawns can move sideways, and the game begins much more open than the closed ranks of a chess board
Looks interesting. You know any app or site I could play vs an AI to see the game?
Re: Ideal Strategy game
http://www.springfrog.com/games/chess/chinese/lemmings121 wrote:dansil92 wrote:Xiangqi is my all time favourite strategy game (its known in the western world as "Chinese Chess"). It has exclusively defensive pieces, and much more variety in behavior of its game pieces in comparison to chess. The "cannon" can only attack by jumping over other pieces, the "elephant" cannot cross the river, pawns can move sideways, and the game begins much more open than the closed ranks of a chess board
Looks interesting. You know any app or site I could play vs an AI to see the game?
This has the western pieces (images instead of characters) and basic rules spelled out
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 293
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: WoodPusher
Re: Ideal Strategy game
The fact that all Go pieces look and behave exactly the same makes the game feel bland. To me, it doesn't have the same personality and dynamism that a game like chess/chinese chess does.Goodspeed wrote:Go is the perfect game. It has no flaws. Simple rules, no RNG, near infinite depth, a healthy balance between intuition and calculation, no draws, etcetera.
If there are aliens out there, they almost certainly play Go.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Have you played it?uberjz wrote:The fact that all Go pieces look and behave exactly the same makes the game feel bland. To me, it doesn't have the same personality and dynamism that a game like chess/chinese chess does.Goodspeed wrote:Go is the perfect game. It has no flaws. Simple rules, no RNG, near infinite depth, a healthy balance between intuition and calculation, no draws, etcetera.
If there are aliens out there, they almost certainly play Go.
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 293
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: WoodPusher
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Of course. Why would I be talking about it otherwise?????
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Go isn't a game of "pieces" like Chess. Talking about pieces and making the point that they all behave the same way as if that's in any way relevant makes you sound like you've never played it, or played it with the expectation that it would be like Chess.
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 293
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: WoodPusher
Re: Ideal Strategy game
The fact that Go "pieces" all behave the same way is extremely relevant, because it is THE major design flaw of the game. Go is about big-picture strategy, at such a grand scale that differences between individuals hardly matter. As you said, the game is not about the pieces, which is why it uses interchangeable stones to represent them.
Chess, in contrast to Go, is all about the pieces. The very essence of the game (which, to preempt any snide low-effort replies, I have also played) is the differences between individual pieces, their strengths and their weaknesses, the way the uniqueness of each piece affects its role on the board. These things give Chess a warm and lively feel, in marked contrast to the detached, impersonal high-strategy game of Go.
Your comment about aliens playing Go is appropriate here; I have always felt that Chess is a more human game. It respects individuals and acknowledges their uniqueness, instead of treating each "piece" as just another interchangeable stone.
Chess, in contrast to Go, is all about the pieces. The very essence of the game (which, to preempt any snide low-effort replies, I have also played) is the differences between individual pieces, their strengths and their weaknesses, the way the uniqueness of each piece affects its role on the board. These things give Chess a warm and lively feel, in marked contrast to the detached, impersonal high-strategy game of Go.
Your comment about aliens playing Go is appropriate here; I have always felt that Chess is a more human game. It respects individuals and acknowledges their uniqueness, instead of treating each "piece" as just another interchangeable stone.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
I disagree. I think the simplicity is what makes the game so good. Would be complicating otherwise. In order for it to be playable you would have to take away some other aspect of the game.uberjz wrote:The fact that Go "pieces" all behave the same way is extremely relevant, because it is THE major design flaw of the game. Go is about big-picture strategy, at such a grand scale that differences between individuals hardly matter. As you said, the game is not about the pieces, which is why it uses interchangeable stones to represent them.
Chess, in contrast to Go, is all about the pieces. The very essence of the game (which, to preempt any snide low-effort replies, I have also played) is the differences between individual pieces, their strengths and their weaknesses, the way the uniqueness of each piece affects its role on the board. These things give Chess a warm and lively feel, in marked contrast to the detached, impersonal high-strategy game of Go.
Your comment about aliens playing Go is appropriate here; I have always felt that Chess is a more human game. It respects individuals and acknowledges their uniqueness, instead of treating each "piece" as just another interchangeable stone.
-
- Dragoon
- Posts: 293
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: WoodPusher
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Yup, there's a trade-off between complexity and playability. Chess on a 100x100 board with 200 pieces for each side, or Go with 8 different kinds of pieces you can place, would be closer to the "ideal" strategy game, combining the large-scale strategic grandness of Go with the dynamic piece interactions of Chess. But it would also be impossible for us to play :/
Re: Ideal Strategy game
Funny I think the opposite. Draws can be incredibly exciting, highlighting the talent of the players playing at the level of the best bots. Nonetheless Chess is changing anyway as bots get stronger. New strategies are always being developed, the most recent being apparently the H pawn to H4 and H5 becoming an incredibly strong super-GM move, when before the H pawn was considered pretty rubbish.Goodspeed wrote:Decisive games are more exciting. Have you followed top level chess recently? The last championship match was 12/12 draws until they decided it in tie breakers. Depressing stuff
Also Chess is slowly trending towards Rapid and Blitz games away from Classical resulting in more less than optimal play, and as a result less draws. Also in the introduction of more Armageddon games to decide tied matches inherently promotes more aggressive play due to the inherent "unfairness" of Armageddon and more players trying to get a result before being forced to play it. Naturally the World Championship will always be behind the times of smaller tournaments but that isn't to say they are a snooze fest or will forever be a snooze fest.
“To love the journey is to accept no such end. I have found, through painful experience, that the most important step a person can take is always the next one.”
Re: Ideal Strategy game
You're obviously looking at the game through Chess-tinted glasses. Go pieces behave the same way individually, but looking at them as individuals is misunderstanding what the game is about.uberjz wrote:The fact that Go "pieces" all behave the same way is extremely relevant, because it is THE major design flaw of the game. Go is about big-picture strategy, at such a grand scale that differences between individuals hardly matter. As you said, the game is not about the pieces, which is why it uses interchangeable stones to represent them.
Chess, in contrast to Go, is all about the pieces. The very essence of the game (which, to preempt any snide low-effort replies, I have also played) is the differences between individual pieces, their strengths and their weaknesses, the way the uniqueness of each piece affects its role on the board. These things give Chess a warm and lively feel, in marked contrast to the detached, impersonal high-strategy game of Go.
Your comment about aliens playing Go is appropriate here; I have always felt that Chess is a more human game. It respects individuals and acknowledges their uniqueness, instead of treating each "piece" as just another interchangeable stone.
Connected Go stones are one piece, called a "group". To capture connected stones you have to capture the whole group. Groups surround territory which is the goal of the game. If you insist on looking at the game through Chess-tinted glasses, it makes much more sense to compare groups of Go stones to pieces in Chess. And groups of Go stones, like Chess pieces, affect the rest of the board quite differently from each other.
Examples (obviously, groups can get much larger than this):
This is partly what I mean when I say Go is not a game of pieces and how they interact with each other. It's a game of groups, and how they interact with each other. Needless to say there is near infinite diversity in how groups interact. Another reason the game isn't about pieces is that it's not about capturing the opponent's most important piece. It's about surrounding territory with groups of stones.
Is Chess being a turn-based game a design flaw? That's something you might say if you were looking at it through RTS-tinted glasses. But you're not, because you actually play and understand Chess, which makes you able to look at it in a vacuum without having to compare it to other games.
Chess is certainly a more individualistic game, but that doesn't make it more human. Rather more Western.Your comment about aliens playing Go is appropriate here; I have always felt that Chess is a more human game. It respects individuals and acknowledges their uniqueness, instead of treating each "piece" as just another interchangeable stone.
Re: Ideal Strategy game
So, not ideal at all, then? Go's healthy balance between large-scale strategy and local tactics is one of the reasons it is the ideal strategy game, to me.uberjz wrote:Yup, there's a trade-off between complexity and playability. Chess on a 100x100 board with 200 pieces for each side, or Go with 8 different kinds of pieces you can place, would be closer to the "ideal" strategy game, combining the large-scale strategic grandness of Go with the dynamic piece interactions of Chess. But it would also be impossible for us to play :/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests