I don''t suppose we could all get a clue from reality and have the losing side surrender?

Wow, lots of responses here. Unfortunately I've been too busy to respond to them until now.

quote:

---

Original post by Diodor
Generally I disagree with your approach - ideally the game should end very soon after the point of no return when victory is _sure_. Having the winning player toy with the losing one a bit more wouldn't solve the real problem of pointless end-games.

Perhaps this could be made to work if the help for the weaker player is very large (making him the dominant player even - trading _all_ buildings for units is an idea) but the winning conditions are changed against him even more (say a time limit for destroying the enemy base). The end game would have the weaker player launch a desperate last all-out attack (somewhere near the end of the mid-game). Of course, after the weaker player takes the plunge, the bigger player wouldn't be allowed to trade his buildings for units too. It is important that the game is designed so that the winning player doesn't usually _want_ to use this option.

---

Yes, you're probably right here. I think for last minute reinforcements to work there has to be some real incentive for the losing player to actually *do* something with them, or really you're just giving him even more units to play hide and seek with. The losing players mission parameters could be changed to "Destroy one of the objectives" rather than capture all of them. If he succeeds, he wins a 'partial defeat' rather than a 'total defeat' - offering him an opportunity to claim back some dignity.

As for Z:Steel Soldiers, I've not gotten around to playing it. Perhaps I should download a demo. However, the idea of having so much positive feedback curve kind of scares me - it would seem that a very small difference in forces - whether gained through skill, cheap tactics or luck - can get amplified into a victory very quickly. In fact, this thread is really, all about the level of feedback and the shape of the balance graph during the course of the game. (anyone who hasn't already read it should read this article by Ernest Adams).

quote:

---

Original post by Kazgoroth
I dont mean any offense at all by this, but this sounds like the thoughts of someone who plays using cheap rush and/or massive outnumbering forces

---

I can see why you might say that, but I'll plead not guilty. Although I'll admit to the occasional mindless BGH comp stomp...

One of my main motivations is to encourage people to use clever tactics rather than massing and rushing. In particular, I'd like the terrain to play a major part in the game - control of key terrain features should be key to meeting the main mission objectives.

The way I see it, once the player secures the objectives, they really should be *secure* - ie proof against any reasonable invasion force - enemy massing notwithstanding. A player who's simply rushed into the objectives without bothering to set up any support would most likely fail (and probably deserves to fail) - but a player who's taken a more strategic approach and set up support units with covering arcs of fire, good defensive positions etc. would most likely succeed.


[edited by - Sandman on May 6, 2004 6:29:48 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by Sandman
As for Z:Steel Soldiers, I''ve not gotten around to playing it. Perhaps I should download a demo. However, the idea of having so much positive feedback curve kind of scares me - it would seem that a very small difference in forces - whether gained through skill, cheap tactics or luck - can get amplified into a victory very quickly. In fact, this thread is really, all about the level of feedback and the shape of the balance graph during the course of the game. (anyone who hasn''t already read it should read this article by Ernest Adams).

---

I only played the original DOS-age Z - it was abandonware at some point, but the site I downloaded from deleted the entry afterwards. I know there was a 3d remake at some point, but I didn''t play that.

You''re right about the positive feedback - in fact Z was all about cheap tactics and often about luck. Rushing to capture an abandoned vehicle, destroying a bridge, capturing a teritory 5 seconds before it builds a new unit, all of these things were so important that having a coherent plan for each level was required for success. Decisions that are really unimportant in a regular strategy game - like moving a single tank - could have made all the difference in Z. The game was all about cheap tactics, but at least it relied on tactics, not on economic dominance and attrition warfare.

The question is whether the relatively low-scale, 5 minutes a level gameplay of Z can be translated to a more serious 30 minutes game with hundreds of units.

I think the key in Z is that even if the teritorial advantage gives a lot of positive feedback, that feedback is delayed. The defending player can fight back and restore the balance, but he must do so fast.

A combination of high but long-term positive feedback and small short-term negative feedback for teritory control can create a game that is reasonably balanced, yet has all the drama of decisive all-out battles followed either by a restoration of the balance or a victory march.

play rise of nations. it has 4 end-game techs that are designed to end the game (instant units, nuke shield, huge economy boost, and insant victory for completing objectives). Also a player can make a big last stand at their capital city. But if their capital falls the game is over. Try this game out it has a strong end game.

How about basing a lot of accuracy on morale?
By the time a war is close to being finished, the winning side is
usually tired and just wants to be done with it.

The losing side, however, should get a losing rush bonus.
Basically, they''re feeling like they''re about to be wiped out.
They''ll start to try and build things faster, if less
innefficiently and most warriors start to get that, "If we''re
going to die out anyways, let''s give ''em hell!" mentality.
Basically, the defenders start to act like aggressors.

This is if the goal is extermination.

If the goal, however, is not to destroy them, but to control
them, then maybe they''ll start to feel like their lives and
species are more important in the long run. Have them offer a
truce in exchange for their complacency.

I think after trouncing them enough, their surrender is a pretty
good endgame. If you don''t accept it, then they''ll start to act
like the first instance and become the aggressors.

The problem is that most games like these assume they''re
battling players and not species. They don''t consider giving up
an option for the computer''s side.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

quote:

---

Original post by Sandman
Have you ever played a strategy game, beaten your opponent (be it a computer or human opponent) and felt the end game to be somewhat anticlimactic? Or have you been beaten squarely by someone else, and sat watching helplessly waiting for him to finish you off completely?

---

In Age of Mythology, one of the Norse gods gave you the power to call on Ragnorak. You could turn all your villagers into heros and fight the final apocalyptic battle at the root of Yggdrasil.

Peace

quote:

---

Original post by hawflakes
play rise of nations. it has 4 end-game techs that are designed to end the game (instant units, nuke shield, huge economy boost, and insant victory for completing objectives). Also a player can make a big last stand at their capital city. But if their capital falls the game is over. Try this game out it has a strong end game.

---

I have to agree RoN is one of the better balanced games, with good endgames. The instance create units lets you pump out as many units as you can, as long as you have the resources, enabling you to have a counter-attack. Though if your not successful you''ll soon run out of resources and you''ll lose your capital.
Happened to me once, I was losing in an endgame. My opponent with a superior economy, alot more cities through capturing cities(a bad point in the game, too much posotive feed back as you can''t destroy cities, only take them, and the fact you can only build a certain number yourself), but he left his capital undefended, I just sent 30 bombers to reduce the city and take it with a number of infantry to gain victory.
I think this type of end game where sides have ''technlogies'' to even the odds breifly works.

Maybe it could be just that most here a taking a rts as a game where you just mass units and whoever has the most wins. IMO these don''t involve much stratagy. A game where the firepower(not neccessarily units) is balanced throughout the game, and the victory condition(s) ramains the same throughout the game(one building to capture/destroy), the anti-climatic endings will be avoided and there will be a greater emphasis on tactics.

Consider the two Iraqs:

In the days of Desert Storm, Iraq''s forces were seen to be surrendering to everybody who even looked like they might be a westerner. Of course, there was still a good deal of fighting going on at the time, but take this core idea out of context as one end of the spectrum.

In the modern era, on the other hand, while the world''s dominant military has taken the country over and beaten it like a bad little schoolgirl, a limited number of forces are seen to be still fighting the good fight, and it has pulled friends and relatives from parts hither and yon into the fray. Again, not a perfect transliteration of events, but it does reflect the media-given view of the situation.

There are a couple of ways I can see to leverage the above ideas. One is to add a media component into the game, so that you can, in the endgame scenario, get massive reinforcements if you have been sufficiently effective in manipulating the media image of your struggle. Another would be more of a "quick ending" catalyst - the enemy''s troops, faced with a ridiculously superior force, could surrender or even defect. I think the latter could actually be used effectively mid-game to change the balance of power significantly - if the enemy can lose troops for morale reasons alone, then a superior commander could conceivably dominate a superior force.

A third possibility exists for combining the two, so that they reinforce one another and play into the struggle itself. This is extremely hard to do right, however, based on the one or two games I''ve seen which tried it.

ld

"By the time a war is close to being finished, the winning side is
usually tired and just wants to be done with it.

The losing side, however, should get a losing rush bonus.
Basically, they''re feeling like they''re about to be wiped out.
They''ll start to try and build things faster, if less
innefficiently and most warriors start to get that, "If we''re
going to die out anyways, let''s give ''em hell!" mentality.
Basically, the defenders start to act like aggressors." -Hyatus

Well, real war works sort of contrary to that. The losing side tends to lose morale since they are losing more and more battles and the winning side gains morale because they start to feel invincible. Put that in game, and the winning side will quickly wipe out their enemy.