Personally I've always wanted a game to implement the following idea:

Instead of relying on the player's fingers to click on the skill why not just have him decide when his unit should use it. Think of it as a Ogre Battle type of system.

This is a very brief example of what I mean but you could tell a unit to use his "flame pillar" spell when:
A. There is a large amount of enemies present in a small radius
B. There is a unit at 10% of his hp.
C. Whenever you're outnumbered.

These are quite simple "ideas" but if a lot of time is spent looking at the small details I'm sure it'll add a lot of strategy to the non-passive skills.

Quote:

However, another thing to consider is that not all choices are interesting. Adding uninteresting choices and foisting them onto the player just to increase the 'complexity' space of a game is a mistake. The best type of complexity to strive for is emergent complexity, when a set of fairly simple to understand rules, intuitive rules converge to create something almost infinitely complex. Games like Chess are excellent examples of this. There are some emergent elements in some games like Starcraft, but they tend to play second fiddle to the twitch aspects.

Indeed, it seems far too often here people completely miss simple game design concepts.

Games are defined by their rules. Games provide gameplay [ala Sid Meier's "interesting choices"].

A 'deep' game is one that provides a great variety of meaningful choices. A game's rules are measured as common sense 'simple/complex'.

The deeper a game is, the better it is. The simpler a game is, the better it is. So how to achieve that? More often than not [think Chess, Go, Mario Brothers, Poker...] it's by making a few, simple rules which provide different choices depending on the environment.

Eh, sorry, I tend to ramble.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller [...]That being said, more people find games like that fun: I don't see TBS games getting that kind of crowd.

Chess is quite popular.

Anyways, RTS games are more about tactics than strategy (because in all the games I've played, once you pick a path {usually predefined because there is only a few competitive choices} you can't make any changes since you've invested all your resources already), and more about micromanagement than anything else (because you have to 'dance' units, use each of the 50 spells you have available at JUST the right time, or as soon as they become available again), and overall aren't too entertaining. I thought strategy games sucked for a long time, then I met somebody rather skilled at chess and having them explain games as they played showed me that TBS games really can have tactics and strategy and be much more engaging than a game of reflexes.
Of course, others will have differing oppinions.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller [...]That being said, more people find games like that fun: I don't see TBS games getting that kind of crowd. Chess is quite popular. Anyways, RTS games are more about tactics than strategy (because in all the games I've played, once you pick a path {usually predefined because there is only a few competitive choices} you can't make any changes since you've invested all your resources already), and more about micromanagement than anything else (because you have to 'dance' units, use each of the 50 spells you have available at JUST the right time, or as soon as they become available again), and overall aren't too entertaining. I thought strategy games sucked for a long time, then I met somebody rather skilled at chess and having them explain games as they played showed me that TBS games really can have tactics and strategy and be much more engaging than a game of reflexes. Of course, others will have differing oppinions.

Your RTS comments may be true about other games, but not about BW. If someone doesn't understand what they are seeing, all they will notice are the easily noticable things: moving damaged units from front to back, for example. But even within those things, there are some very clever things going on (besides the mental multitasking ability and dexterity required to pull it off ffectively). For example, a player may run a unit with a Defensive Matrix into a battle first to draw fire from everything, then run his main army in.

About chess: Yes, that game sure has stuck over the centuries. But can you name a TBS videogame that is popular compared to WC3/BW/CS? I know I can't.


Some random thoughts:

The difference between "tactics" and "strategy" is extremely vague.

Watching (and performing) insane micro-contrtol tricks is fun.

There's nothing wrong with mixing dexterity in with strategy.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller About chess: Yes, that game sure has stuck over the centuries. But can you name a TBS videogame that is popular compared to WC3/BW/CS? I know I can't.

That's because you're a Brood War Fanboy.

Do you think humans will be playing Starcraft in a few centuries? I know I don't.


Oh, and I don't think that exploiting the unit AI should really be considered 'strategy'.

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller About chess: Yes, that game sure has stuck over the centuries. But can you name a TBS videogame that is popular compared to WC3/BW/CS? I know I can't. That's because you're a Brood War Fanboy. Do you think humans will be playing Starcraft in a few centuries? I know I don't. Oh, and I don't think that exploiting the unit AI should really be considered 'strategy'.

Why isn't it strategy? Explain.

While I don't see BW being played in a couple of centuries, it is currently growing, something that cannot be said of any videogame with the qualities you are describing.

Why is exploiting AI not strategy? Do I really need to explain that?

Quote:

Original post by Telastyn Why is exploiting AI not strategy? Do I really need to explain that?

Yes, you do. Just because you are using properties of the unit AI to your advantage does not mean it isn't strategic.

Quote:

Original post by Daniel Miller Quote: Original post by Telastyn Why is exploiting AI not strategy? Do I really need to explain that? Yes, you do. Just because you are using properties of the unit AI to your advantage does not mean it isn't strategic.

Stragey: "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations."
When you talk about micromanagement, you're NOT talking about strategy. Strategy is the big picture, the whole plan. It is something long-term.

At best, moving a difficult-to-kill unit up front would be tactics ("An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver." - the smalle steps you take to execute a strategy), but I like to call it obvious. Personally, I prefer intellectually challenging activities and I don't feel games like Brood War fit that description at all. You learn a few very simple patterns and then just work on being able to execute them faster than anybody else.

Why doesn't chess count as a videogame? There are plenty of electronics versions, and since they all implement the same rules (as long as they're working programs anyways), I think you could say chess is quite a popular video game.

Quote:

Original post by Extrarius Quote: Original post by Daniel Miller Quote: Original post by Telastyn Why is exploiting AI not strategy? Do I really need to explain that? Yes, you do. Just because you are using properties of the unit AI to your advantage does not mean it isn't strategic. Stragey: "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations." When you talk about micromanagement, you're NOT talking about strategy. Strategy is the big picture, the whole plan. It is something long-term. At best, moving a difficult-to-kill unit up front would be tactics ("An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver." - the smalle steps you take to execute a strategy), but I like to call it obvious. Personally, I prefer intellectually challenging activities and I don't feel games like Brood War fit that description at all. You learn a few very simple patterns and then just work on being able to execute them faster than anybody else. Why doesn't chess count as a videogame? There are plenty of electronics versions, and since they all implement the same rules (as long as they're working programs anyways), I think you could say chess is quite a popular video game.

1. Most strategic things are obvious when you aren't in the situation, or when you the strategy presented to you. It was not obvious to originally think of it, and it is not alwyas obvious when you are in the heat of battle (and sometimes you simply don't have the time because your opponent is forcing you to concentrate on other things).

2. Still, there are Broodwar players who are known for their strategy. A player named Lim Yo Hwan (SlayerS_`BoxeR`) innovated a plethora of builds and techniques. He's a brilliant player. He is able to stategize while playing at a blazing speed.

3. Broodwar is intellectually challenging in a different way. It is very diffucult to keep an incredible number of things in your head and it is difficult to think so incredibly quickly. So, in reality, you prefer an intellectual challenge that you find easier. Personally, I call your slow-as-olasses-games boring. I like games where you can force your opponent to make quick decisions (that adds another layer of strategy as a matter of fact).

4. Is chess a high selling videogame? Even if it is, it is the exception, not the rule (unless there are other popular TBS strategy games, and I can't think of any).