quote:

---

Original post by Dauntless
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

---

Yeah, you''re probably right on that.

As usual, it becomes a balancing act between gameplay and atmosphere.

I need to play a few of these wargames... I''ve tried Steel Panthers: World at War, TacOps, and a couple others at battlefront.com - any suggestions?

quote:

---

Original post by Argus
Because most RTS games give a significant advantage to the defender, rushing doesn''t decide games between good players.

---

In general, games need to appeal to more than just ''good players''.

quote:

---

Err, well evidently "rushers" have chosen better things to build in better ratios, and have deployed them better. How do they not deserve the win?

---

Because it magnifies a tiny difference in decision-making into a massive advantage.

quote:

---

Yes very few RTS games have such strategies. The big problem is that people like you (and Inmate) walk into a game, get beaten by a rush, somehow decide that because your amazing strategic abilities cannot figure out a good defence in the 2 minutes of thought you gave to it, that you had no choice but to execute the exact same strategy. I proved that this was the case for Inmate, but you Kylotan, have not done the courtesy of giving me any examples to work with.

---

Examples are pointless. No-one is saying that rushes are unbeatable. What we are saying is that defeating them often requires choosing from a very limited subset of all the options potentially available to you. Merely posting the "what you should have done" response to an example I could provide doesn''t prove anything.

quote:

---

Strategy is figuring out what choices you do have - chances are some people have already worked on anti-rush strategies, and you should try to get hold of them if you can''t think of any yourself. And add to them if possible.

---

The game should offer obvious and emergent ways to combat threads that don''t involve you having to consult a web forum in order to get the ''optimal response''. Isn''t it just rock-paper-scissors where you choose your move based on what you read online?

quote:

---

And how would you know this without giving it serious strategic thought? Perhaps you actually have an example of a strategy in a widely-played RTS that cannot be repelled except by using the same strategy?

---

I don''t think I was ever defeated using the ''NOD Bike Swarm'' on the original Command and Conquer, given enough resources. Can it be beaten? Of course. Was there an obvious way to do so? Not really. Sure, I never played against the best C+C players, but I shouldn''t need to.

Even some people who support rushes agree with my general point: "In my opinion, Rushing is an essental part to any game even though it does limit some strategical wonder from occuring.". Of course, players who think they are pretty good can always say "you''re just not good enough", but that''s not really the point, is it? I suppose your argument is that the best execution of a given plan should always win, whereas I would prefer the player with the most ability to adapt to win. I would prefer RTS games that played more like Chess or Magic: The Gathering.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

quote:

---

Original post by Kylotan
I don't think I was ever defeated using the 'NOD Bike Swarm' on the original Command and Conquer, given enough resources. Can it be beaten? Of course. Was there an obvious way to do so? Not really. Sure, I never played against the best C+C players, but I shouldn't need to.

---

Actually I disagree. For the longest time I would play Starcraft custom games and slap around the noobs with simalir tactics. I had the perfect 8-32 (depending on the map) Muta rush. I laughed and laughed as I crushed those noobs. I thought that my rush was undefeatable.

THEN I got on the ladder, and boy oh boy did things change for my tried and true rush. I was beaten like the noob I was. And beaten soundly. Good players could handle my rush no problem. I know you said you shouldn't have to be good to defeat a rush but this is my real point:

The "Ladder" is the real balencing device between players and not the type of game they play. Even if there was no "rush" to speak of arn't you just magnifiying the "problem" of one player having an advantage over another?

Playing on a ladder with players of equal skill always makes the game a challenge. Rushes do not matter because most likely you both have the same amount of skill in creating/deflecting that rush. IMHO.

I will restate my early question:

When you make the first move in a game are you not playing?

The game of Chess is one ongoing move (rush) after another and dictates the entire game, one move at a time, much like a rush affects gameplay in an RTS. Is this a bad thing? No. RTS's are a lot simpler than Chess so you think people could conpensate...

End worthless rambling.


[edited by - Critical_Waste on May 9, 2003 2:44:48 PM]

RTS is by no means simpler than chess. Take a moment to think about it.

quote:

---

Original post by Critical_Waste
The "Ladder" is the real balencing device between players and not the type of game they play. Even if there was no "rush" to speak of arn''t you just magnifiying the "problem" of one player having an advantage over another?

---

Why would you draw that conclusion? I''ve stated my hypothesis; that the need to prepare for a rush in some games limits your strategic options - and therefore you already know my answer to your question. (Which is that it does the opposite.)

quote:

---

Rushes do not matter because most likely you both have the same amount of skill in creating/deflecting that rush.

---

Even if there is a foolproof way of defeating a rush, it may still require you to use it every time, just in case it becomes necessary.

I thought this was clear from Post #1 - I''m not saying rushes are unbeatable. I''m saying that, in many games, the way you defend against a rush makes it quite difficult to play in different ways. It limits your options. That''s my theory, which has some support, and I''m not interested in arguing the "but you can stop a rush" aspect

quote:

---

The game of Chess is one ongoing move (rush) after another and dictates the entire game, one move at a time, much like a rush affects gameplay in an RTS. Is this a bad thing? No.

---

A move is not the same as a rush. Perhaps if Chess pawns were queens, this might be true. But they''re not. In Chess you always have time to react, and usually a myriad of ways in which to do so. I don''t believe that RTS games always give you enough time to react, since the difference between the players can be exploited too quickly, and I don''t believe there are enough different ways to repel such an attack. It''s often more a case of "my opponent has played a Rock; I have to have enough resources to deploy an equal amount of Paper in the very near future or I lose.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL Docs | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost
Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff | Tiny XML | STLPort]

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
RTS is by no means simpler than chess. Take a moment
to think about it.

---

Yeah, sure whatever. You are wrong. Take a moment to
think about it. (shakes head at "kids these days")

quote:

---

Kylotan I don't believe that RTS
games always give you enough time to react, since the
difference between the players can be exploited too
quickly, and I don't believe there are enough
different ways to repel such an attack.

---

So how much time does PlayerX need to build his chosen
plan of attack? And anyway wouldn't you still have the
"problem" of having to adapt to your oppenents plan of
attack (rush or not) anyways? Chances are the better
player, given time, will crush the lesser player even
if he had time to prepare his plan of defense etc.

This is why I say the ladder works. And works well.
Because in the end it is the better player that wins,
either with a short rush or a long term attack.

Maybe you shouldn't try "fixing" RTS's. Prehaps try
playing another type of game? Question: Have you
played Myth? Rushes never worked in Myth, unless you
counted getting to the higher ground faster than your
opponent... (same problem, different game.)

quote:

---

Kylotan I've stated my hypothesis;
that the need to prepare for a rush in some games
limits your strategic options

---

Warfare (whatever its shape) is fundamentally about
limiting your oppenents options. If you are playing a
game about war what are you doing? What do you hope to
achive?

quote:

---

Sunzi
http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war,
cleverness has never been seen associated with
long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited
from prolonged warfare.
...

3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to
balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to
prevent
the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in
order is to attack the enemy's army in the field;
and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled
cities.

...


5. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics;
ability to defeat the enemy means taking the
offensive.

6. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient
strength; attacking, a superabundance of
strength.

---

This guy was one smart dude. Good reading and still
applicable today. I could quote a whole lot more but I
don't want to take more time. Is he wrong?

quote:

---

A move is not the same as a rush. Perhaps if
Chess pawns were queens, this might be true.

---

A bad opponent in a game of chess would make this
statement true. However this is not the case. Are you
saying we should only play chess with dim-witted
people? A good player makes his first move with
dileberation. A good player shapes the game affecting
your options with each move. If a players move does
not affect you in some way then you are playing
against a fool.



[edited by - Critical_Waste on May 9, 2003 4:53:19 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Critical_Waste

Original post by Anonymous Poster
RTS is by no means simpler than chess. Take a moment
to think about it.

---

Yeah, sure whatever. You are wrong. Take a moment to
think about it. (shakes head at "kids these days"


Oh really, in chess you have a static board with objects having predefined paths. On a pixel resolution of 8*8 pixels. Where on rts you might have a resolution of 10000*10000 and having objects with undefined paths. Check the math. You really don''t have a clue do you? Besides, I am probably twice as old as you.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Oh really, in chess you have a static board with objects having predefined paths. On a pixel resolution of 8*8 pixels. Where on rts you might have a resolution of 10000*10000 and having objects with undefined paths. Check the math. You really don''t have a clue do you?

---

OH MY GAWD! THE SIZE OF THE BOARD MEANS EVERYTHING! YOU ARE SO RIGHT! CHESS IS SO DAMN SIMPLE COMPARED TO ANY RTS! YOU''VE CHANGED MY VIEW ON CHESS AND RTS''S! THANK YOU SO MUCH!

AND JUST THINK OF ALL THOSE "SMART PEOPLE" WHO THINK THEIR PLAYING THE HARDER GAME OF WITS! MY L33T RTS SKILLZ OWN0RZ THOSE LOSERZ! I MUST BE A GOD!

Yes, here I am being an ass. I am sorry but it is also to make a point. I will not respond to further off topic posts like this one so as to stay on topic.

I agree with anonymous, a good wargame is far more complex than chess and the permutations and combinations are far greater. Not only is movement less constricted, but unit types have far more divergent and different capabilities than pieces in chess. If chess were more complex than wargames, than master chess players should make the best commanders, and this simply isn''t so. As I stated previously, Chess can help develop skills that help commanders, but the amount of information and considerations and unknowns that a commander has to face is far greater than chess allows for. Wargames are so popular I think precisely because they are more strategically deep than chess.

I think Kylotan''s point is that because the way certain RTS games are designed, it intrinsically narrows strategic choices down for players. For example, France developed the Maginot line partially because they thought the next war would be a static war like WWI fought amongst trenches (the other reason was that they thought a static defense line would be cheaper than a large standing army which was more mobile). Now, imagine if the French had been correct, and the Germans didn''t bypass the line through Belgium. In essence, game designers force certain preconceived notions about what war will be like and those notions are what constrain player choices. In WWII, the Germans happened to realize that thanks to tanks and airplanes, war had become a dynamic force. Unfortunately the Germans, as usual, they downplayed the significance of Naval strength, and it ultimately is what defeated them (that and arrogance in attacking Russia without enlisting the Ukraine''s support). But what if the game designers themselves thought that France had picked the winning strategy?

When designers think about the game concept with static unit types and predetermined battle conditions, then static strategies are the result. When games do not offer enough unknowns and variable starting conditions, players will quickly figure out the possible permutations and develop strategies accordingly. The best solution to avoid these kinds of strategems are to create more unknowns and to have dynamic units and starting conditions. This way it will be virtually impossible to come up with "tried and true" strategies. It will require players to probe and reconnoiter and understand what kind of composition of forces the enemy player has.

---

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

"RTS is by no means simpler than chess. Take a moment to think about it. "

I do not consider an RTS a good "Wargame". This is why I do not consider the Anon poster to be correct. However I agree with Dauntless''s assesment which considers Wargames.

Thanks for being a good poster Dauntless, you''re a better person than I. I am a little busy though, that is why my hasty replies. I come here when I am stumped on something and let my brain settle. Then I get back to work.