quote:

---

Original quote by Argus
Figuring out the (current) best way to do something is precisely strategising. Better strategists figure out better ways to do something. If you were really concerned about strategy in gaming, you would take an opposing rush as a strategic challenge. As I pointed out last post, poor strategists give up quickly. I showed in detail how Inmate had grossly overlooked his strategic options. But he gave up instead - immediately deciding that he had no hope of beating that rush without leaving himself vulnerable.

---

There''s a problem with this though. A lot of whether rushing is a viable strategy or not depends on the conventions of your game, and the context in which it is used. In many games the player starts out with nothing but "harvesters" and builds their nation as they go. This has the advantage of making everything "fair", because everyone starts out the same. Unfortunately though, it''s also unrealistic if the player expects warfare and diplomacy in realistic terms.

The problem is not so much with rushing itself, since if the game paradigm and conventions allow it, it should therefore be a viable strategy that players have to learn to overcome or deploy. On the other hand, the game paradigm that most strategy games exhibit encourage this kind of strategy for a variety of reasons. I''ve never quite understood the concept of building your nation from scratch as the game progresses. I suppose some players like the nation building aspect, as it combines warfare with a Sim City kind of gameplay. And only by properly building the correct buildings can you advance your technological progress or support your troops.

But in realistic terms, it doesn''t make sense. And that''s why there are "illogical" strategies like the rush that exist. It''s illogical from the point of view of reality...not from the point of view of the game. Back in old school days, we called people who exploited game rules as "rules lawyers". Basically they took advantage of a rule and violated the "spirit" of a rule in order to become more powerful. This is how I see rush tactics. Legally, they are valid strategies that make sense. However, when looked at from a realistic perspective they don''t make sense.

The reason it doesn''t make realistic logical sense is from a variety of factors.

1. Countries are never equal in power, and yet game design (and desingers) almost always try to enforce the concept of 100% equality
2. Each player knows that they both start out exactly the same and know the power and capability of each side''s units.
3. In real life, countries already have an established economy and military force before a war begins
4. Countries allocate military resources differently
5. In modern engagements, natural resources and manufacturing plants are known locations and should be revealed
6. Battlefields are dynamic in real life...not static like in most games (players should chose when and where they fight, not according to what map the game designer made)

And many many more. I personally don''t mind rushing strategies simply because games allow for them. If the game allows for them, and it makes sense within the game rules and game conventions, more power to you. Personally though, I want to create a more realistic system that makes rushing "blitzkreiging" possible, but since my game will have many cities and manufacturing centers, the rush would have to be on a massive scale to knock out everything.

---

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Well, let''s not get too bent on realism here... I highly doubt your average player is playing Warcraft 3, Starcraft, or whatever flavor-of-the-month RTS is because it''s just like real life.

C&C Generals I could understand this problem.

But these other games often have vastly unorthodox units. I don''t think it''s fair to condemn an RTS for not compelling its players to use realistic military strategies, if the units aren''t realistic or military to begin with.

In part it''s probably because of a lack of realism - or logic - in RTS game designs that I haven''t played them in ages.

There are lots of little nagging questions I get that the game takes for granted:

-Why do I, personally, need to manage my money and resources? Are there no outside sources? Does every battlefield really have valuable resources sitting within easy reach?

-Where do these units come from? How do they all fit in those tiny buildings? Why are they not transported in from elsewhere?

-How come my units don''t need supplies after they appear, only when they are built? Why is there no simulation of logistical problems? How come my units can''t train to specialize before fighting?

-How is it that I can build one soldier in maybe 1/10th the time of a building? Are they assembling pre-manufactured parts here?

-Why do my units see so little at a distance? Do they all have vision problems? I''m pretty sure I could see some huge buildings at two or maybe even five times the distance that these guys do. And why are the maps so small? You can''t hide much of anything even on a large one if anyone takes the effort to send a unit or two to scout. Shouldn''t a good job hiding your base be rewarded?

Individually, I guess these are all OK conventions. But I see every one of them used over and over without question! This is one of the reasons why we have a "rush problem" in the first place; the current RTS conventions promote strategies that can neither draw on or be applied to reality, even the game''s "reality," when you start looking at the pre-rendered cut-scenes and thinking about them too deeply. The only place in which they work is in the game itself, because it''s been designed to allow it.

I was probably overexaggerating over the ALWAYS getting rushed thing. You normally stop playing a game after going against more skilled players and get your ass handed back to you twice a day for a full week. But this isn''t what we''re supposed to be talking about.

First, the Rush is an effective strategy. I remember going all crazy one game and producing something like 100 marines and wiping out two opponents, despite their complete technological advancement. However, this was an end-game rush, after some 30 minutes of play and expansion and tech. This type of rush isn''t the problem. Via my example, I was trying to show the type of rush that is a problem. Those early game rushes where a critical errors has been made in the first few decisions. Granted, a screw-up in the beginning can hamper you later. For example, if you close the choke-hold to prevent rushing, you cut yourself off from expansion which IS important early in the game. I made the conscious decision that I''d rather be able to bitch about being cheaprushed then bitch about shooting myself in the foot.

STOP. Don''t reply challenging me on my gameplay tactics, this isn''t a BLIZZARD-STARCRAFT-STRATEGY Messageboard system.

On the thing that really gets me bent out of shape on this particular style of RTS is the lack of defense. So, one idea is to have the main base capable of some rudamentary defense. A man with a gun pointing out the window would suffice. I don''t lose in the first few minutes, but I am set back, while others get to expand.

This is just one possible idea, do we have any others, or should I just now concede that yes I do suck at starcraft and yes that JMPROTOSSSUCKZERGRULES2047 is a better player then me?

Without any regard for realism, only game dynamics...

As an example, would the ability to build a slow moving artillery unit early in the game provide proper defense against the rush? They move so slowly that they couldn't be used in a rush attack against the opponent, but could be built and placed in positions that will destroy the weak rush force that would attack.

Later in the game, air-based units could easily pick off your artillery, but by that time you would have missile launching emplacements to fend off the aircraft.

An arrangement like that would make rushing foolish, but again, for building the artillery, you sacrifice other kinds of buildup. Since artillery has splash damage, perhaps you only have to build a couple to fend off the rush. But then to be able to do so almost seems too easy, almost like it's just one of those annoying necessities early in the game, and after the rush time period has expired, the artillery unit serves little purpose (unless the opponent attacks all ground when they come in and you can keep aircraft from picking them off) - you could transport it into the field with a dropship to guard a ground-based choke point or something.

From this standpoint, I think the viability of rushing is determined more by the game's specific design. It may be that building the artillery is an effective way to handle most of the playing styles for that game design, so for that game in particular, rushing goes away. Which could ultimately steal an element from the game.

Perhaps if building the artillery required careful planning of resources, so that if you build them too soon, you would fall too far behind, that might make it more game-able. The goal would be to have the artillery placed and deployed at the moment the rush force arrives, assuring you've made the most effective use of your collection in the very beginning.


[edited by - Waverider on May 8, 2003 11:58:08 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Waverider
As an example, would the ability to build a slow moving artillery unit early in the game provide proper defense against the rush? They move so slowly that they couldn''t be used in a rush attack against the opponent, but could be built and placed in positions that will destroy the weak rush force that would attack.

Later in the game, air-based units could easily pick off your artillery, but by that time you would have missile launching emplacements to fend off the aircraft.

An arrangement like that would make rushing foolish, but again, for building the artillery, you sacrifice other kinds of buildup. Since artillery has splash damage, perhaps you only have to build a couple to fend off the rush. But then to be able to do so almost seems too easy, almost like it''s just one of those annoying necessities early in the game, and after the rush time period has expired, the artillery unit serves little purpose (unless the opponent attacks all ground when they come in and you can keep aircraft from picking them off) - you could transport it into the field with a dropship to guard a ground-based choke point or something.

From this standpoint, I think the viability of rushing is determined more by the game''s specific design. It may be that building the artillery is an effective way to handle most of the playing styles for that game design, so for that game in particular, rushing goes away. Which could ultimately steal an element from the game.

Perhaps if building the artillery required careful planning of resources, so that if you build them too soon, you would fall too far behind, that might make it more game-able. The goal would be to have the artillery placed and deployed at the moment the rush force arrives, assuring you''ve made the most effective use of your collection in the very beginning.


[edited by - Waverider on May 8, 2003 11:58:08 PM]

---

Yeah, that could work, especially since artillery''s versatile and can be used on the attack and the defense.

Any unit that is useful and cost-effective for the whole game would be good for this sort of thing. Problem is, units that are useful for the early-game often aren''t cost-effective late game. Artillery is one of the few units that would probably do the trick, as long as they didn''t do so much damage as to beat down basic "rush" units.

Example. In Starcraft (yes, another SC example) marines were the fastest basic units you could get out early. Discounting the SCV rush, or using SCV''s on zerglings, marines were also the most ineffective basic unit - zerglings could close quickly and tear them apart, zealots had shields and could chop them apart, especially with the marines'' low HP and piddly 6 damage gauss rifle.

Thus, bunkers. They protect the marines, but they also set back your resources 100. And the AI of units meant that the melee units would surround the bunker and the marines would stupidly spread their fire instead of concentrating on one target. The bunker with marines would soon become crunchy on the outside, with a chewy center.

Bunkers are immobile and become less and less significant the later you get in the game. You can add firebats and ghosts, but often you''ll have siege tanks to deal with incoming ground forces anyway. And the ghost''s most crucial abilities are negated while in a bunker, leaving them with their awful canister rifle.

If a mobile solution was implemented, like a mobile, deployable bunker, this would help alleviate the increasingly weak bunker problem while keeping the 100 minerals tied up in a versatile solution. Something that could be used the entire game.

Note that I''m not discussing the effects a mobile bunker would have on the whole Starcraft game design. It''s just a what-if for this example.

Beige-
I have a hunch that the people that don''t like rush strategies are the people that want a more realistic approach to their strategy making. In the real world, most nations never put all their eggs in one basket, and if they do, their defeat is usually swift unless they get lucky.

Me personally, I''m looking for something beyond the Blizzard/Westwood mold of strategy gaming. I enjoy wargames more than strategy games for this reason. Indeed, I think there''s enough difference to warrant a complete distinction between the RTS genre, and the Wargame genre. Many RTS games pass themselves off as wargames, but really, they are in a mold unto themselves. They have different rules and conventions of war than a "realistic" war would have. What bothers some players I think, is that the strategies used in some RTS games simply doesn''t jibe with the way real wars are fought.

This doesn''t mean that they are necessarily less thoughtful, it simply means they differ in thinking. It''s like saying that you''ll be an excellent general by being a master chess player. While some qualities of being a good chess player will equate to good commander skills, it''s not the same. It''s the same logical fallacy that thinking that simply by lifting weights, I''ll become a good football player. In sports terms, you call it "specificity of training". I think it works for mental applications as well. Lifting weights will definitely help and assist me in being a better football player, but I still have to know how to play football.

And that''s what I think a HUGE amount of the complaints are about many aspects of RTS games. I think some (probably not even a majority) are disappointed by RTS games because of the many short cuts and abstractions they made to the warfare aspect. It''s sort of a love/hate thing...many players like the simplicity and streamlined rules and conventions of gaming, but want the depth of play offered by a more hardcore grognard wargame that factors in many deeper levels of strategic thought.

---

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

quote from inmate2993:

First, the Rush is an effective strategy. I remember going all crazy one game and producing something like 100 marines and wiping out two opponents, despite their complete technological advancement. However, this was an end-game rush, after some 30 minutes of play and expansion and tech.

Your opponenets must have really been horrific seen as any of the late game tech unit''s can wipe out 100 marines extremely easily (two high templars for example can do it).

To me, rushing is the same as gambling. You gamble that your opponent won''t pick the path that will defeat your strategy. It''s a one-shot rock-paper-scissors game. No best-of-three call possible. No skill that isn''t easily mastered involved. Either you cripple yourself rushing an opponent prepared for your particular style of attack, or you cripple yourself preparing for an attack that never happens because your opponent saved his money to buy bigger guns.

Before I start sounding too dogmatic, I should mention that I did play Command & Conquer a lot, and later Warzone 2100, but I haven''t played any RTS other than those sufficiently to know for certain that the problem still exists in general (though the presence of this thread seem to suggest it does). I stopped playing RTS games once I noted the tendency of games with equally matched good players to be nothing more than five-minute mad gambles. I was, at the time, in the top ten of Case''s Command & Conquer ladder, so I do believe I was pretty good, and had good opponents.

I won''t bore you with tales of dull battles but head straight for my favourite (unproven) solution: completely remove fog of war (and by that I mean both the initially shrouded map and hidden enemy units/structures throughout the game), or, alternatively, give access to very powerful map/unit/structure revealing units/structures very early in the game.

This would make short work of any attempt to short circuit any strategic decisions by gambling on early rushes, because, obviously, you would see them being prepared long before they became a threat. Besides, fog of war makes, in my opinion, no sense on the scale (or larger) of Westwood or Blizzard RTS games, at least not in modern, futuristic or fantasy settings.

For those of you too young to remember, C&C did not hide enemy units once the map was revealed. You could keep your base shrouded (but not secret) if you were lucky, but to do so you needed to seal of your base quickly to prevent enemy units from entering and pushing back the map shroud. To me, this situation posed far more interesting problems. It removed much of the guesswork and gambling required in later RTS games. It made the game more strategic in nature, a game of positioning and posturing, threatening and diverting attention, finding weaknesses and exploting them at the right time, in direct and immediate response to your opponent''s actions. More like chess, less like uncontrolled panic, still intense, demanding and fast.

The rush gamble problem was still there, as I mentioned, but only, I believe, because the map was initially shrouded. It needed to be pushed back before you could act. One would think this would prevent early rushes, but instead it added another element of chance (besides being a required tedious task for any non-beginner): you needed to find the enemy base before your enemy found yours. Of course, knowing the map you could make educated guesses, but so could your opponent. The element of chance was still there. You needed your scouts to get lucky.

Obviously, if one enjoys pushing the rules of the games to their limits, dislike artificial rules, and like the element of chance and short, quick games, one won''t agree with me, and that''s okay. Personally, though, I''d much rather spend my time out-witting my opponent, thoroughly humiliating him, and doing it as slowly as possible.

Anyone can gamble and win.

oo

quote:

---

Original post by Argus
What Dauntless and ToohrVyk have suggested - that "the opposing player doesn''t know your exact capabilities at first, and must probe your strengths and weaknesses" works reasonably well. People are less likely to rush if you choose random race in RTS games for example (since few rushes are effective against all factions). Add in other unknown factors and things become even more risky. A player known to only rush will not make it far (not that they make it far anyway).

---

It is a good thought but the fact is that there are only so many units that you usually can create in the beginning. So the variety of attacks is somewhat limited. So basically you can do two things. 1. build and attack 2. build and defend whomever holds out usually wins if they are somewhat equal. If the rush fails or fails to damage enough you will loose because now you are short on resources. If the defender holds then he might very well win because of the more numerous units left and the fact that s/he has more resources collected. This is what I have seen most often online and on LAN. So, I really don''t agree on the point that you need to scout because most of the time you learn your opponent and what people most often prefer to do. It basically is as boring as finding out how the computer works and beat it every time. A point system, on the other hand, would only allow you to have x amount of units and that''s it. You might be able to purchase some more (reinforcement) during battle but don''t expect anything big. This forces the players to *think* on how to effectively take out the opponents army in order to secure victory. It will be a whole new ballgame. There is probably no argument that can convince me that allowing the traditional style of battle (resource->build) is better than a point system. I would be interested in hearing some though.

____________________________________________________________
Try RealityRift at www.planetrift.com
Feel free to comment, object, laugh at or agree to this. I won''t engage in flaming because of what I have said.
I could be wrong or right but the ideas are mine.