quote:
Original post by haro
Isn''t the current strategy in any RTS to control land? Namely, your opponent''s. Not to be facetious, but it would all end up the same.

Well true. However I think you should look at the whole terrain control measuring thing as just a tool. It could be used for instance to implement better battle AI for computer characters, as a score which contributes to the victory conditions, or even as a mission objective e.g. Secure this piece of land for x amount of time or something.

Although the whole concept of two people playing the same game with different goals seems a bit iffy to me. i mean if there is no conflict of interests why fight at all?? Why not just trade (I''ll agree destroy all my blacksmiths if you give me that piece of land)

quote: Original quote by Sandman
I have a few of problems with this approach: Firstly, it doesn''t give much flexibility after the start of the game - what happens if things don''t go according to plan and I find that my chosen objective is unreachable? I''m left with a decision to either keep throwing more men at it, or retreat - there''s no opportunity to devise Plan B.

On the other end of the scale, what happens if both players choose objectives which are not mutually exclusive? What motivation is there to fight if they can both capture their objectives and then just wall in and protect them? Do they both win?

I think the problem here is one of scale. If the player realizes that his goals are unachievable, then he simply retreats, thereby forfeiting his goals. However, some goals might be the prevention of the opposing player from doing something or perhaps the enemy player''s goals can also be hamstrung if the player hangs in. For example, Player A may realize he can not hold the bridge by the end of the day, but perhaps Player B had to take the bridge by mid-afternoon or miss a secondary target that he had to hit. Player A doesn''t know that Player B has a time limit. So it''s possible for both sides to "lose" just as it''s possible for both sides to "win".

Moreover, the scale at which you look at victory conditions is important. As I said, the big picture is the most important, and looking at individual battles is a bad way to gauge whether a side is "winning" or not. Ultimately wars are won when one side can no longer fight or chooses not to fight. How this is achieved is exactly what strategy is about....making the other guy unable to continue the fight, while you still can. So on some ways, war is more about endurance than strength. Germany simply got winded before the Russians did and consequently they lost despite fantastic initial gains. The Japanese also did fantastic at first...so good in fact that they stretched themselves too thin and unable to defend themselves well against allied counter attacks. In Vietnam, Americans forces basically kicked the tar out Vietnamese forces, but America simply lost stomach for the war in a mental and political sense, and the Vietnamese outlasted us.

So I think it is possible for two sides to have mutually exclusive goals and still "win" or both "lose" the battle. But don''t judge winning the war by looking at how many battles were won. Sometimes even losing can ultimately be a good thing. In the Battle for the Atlantic, had the German U-boats not been so terrifyingly effective, British and American forces may have taken longer to develop sonar and advanced submarine hunting techniques. In the American Civil War, Union losses at First Manassas, Shiloh and Antietam led to an outcry for a new General, ultimately replacing McClellan (and Burnsides....or was it Hooker?).

I think a game which has to have a winner and a loser does not reflect reality well, and also narrows gameplay. A system that allows for greys along with the black and white is more rewarding and interesting because it always keeps you on your toes.


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