GA&D sort of hits this point, but imagine all the parameters that make up the game are intentionally exposed to the players. You could have a big ini file, or an Access DB or whatever. The original designers could tweak the parameters to their hearts content and then ship with what they found enjoyable. But the access to the params would still be left in for the player to change at will.

The shipping ini might say:

tank_attack_power=5
tank_armor=7
soldier_attack_power=2
soldier_armor=2
etc.

You could set them however you wanted. Maybe some rules would be created to allow multiplayer games a level of balance, but otherwise tweak away!!!

Dash Zero
Credits: Fast Attack - Software Sorcery - Published by Sierra 1996

Well, DashZero, tweaking paramaters is good, but what about multiplayer? There would definately be some strangeness if everything was done on each client using internal data that wasn''t the same on each client.

What I''d like to see is some controlled randomization on the factors that influence how strong the units are. Say if you aim towards armor made of wax coated strips of flax, well, the effectiveness of that armor (besides being highly flammable) would depend on the components of the wax and the type of flax, which would be pseudo random, based off of the ecology of the area where the armor was made.

Hope that makes some sense.

Reminds me of the red alert cheat where you can edit the units properties...

Tesla troops were always fun, and equipping medics with 8 inch guns and heavy armour was a good tactic against the computer (because the AI knew the unit was a waste of space and never built them)

I dont think there is anything wrong with this, (it''s fun) but for multiplayer the game should make sure that all players are using the same file.

If you guys want to talk about multiplayer "fairness", you have to get back to balance issues.

Maybe the portal where you join to play with others gives a rating of how tough your opponents units are. (This is a can of worms, but assume there is some way to evaluate the tweaks each person made.)

Simplest case, assume there are 10 variables that can be tweaked. The portal could display the total number of points used by each player in the game. If all your opponents were each using a total of 100 points, you might see if you could beat them with an 80 point team. (Or 66 if you are Dauntless!)

Maybe each individual game would have a point total ceiling - 100 points or less division, 1000 points or less divison, unlimited class!!! You wouldn''t be able to join a game if your "tweak total" was higher than the ceiling.

You get the idea...

If this became popular, there would be web pages dedicated to strategies given point totals. You''d see stuff like "If you only have 100 tweakpoints forget about using tanks. You will not be able to reach scenario objectives with them - this is an all soldier brawl! Allocate 0 points to each of the tank variables. Now it is decision time - 2 main strategies exist: all infantry with heavy armor (agressive offense) just run towards the goal and try for a quick win -OR- split points between sharpshooters with no armor and spys and try a defensive/sneaky strategy..."

Dash Zero
Credits: Fast Attack - Software Sorcery - Published by Sierra 1996

DREW

Sigma sure looks like something straight out of a player''s dream.

As for game balance:

Have each battle consist of two parts.
a) Player 1 picks his army and Player 2 picks his army.
b) Player 1 plays with Player 2''s army, Player 2 plays with Player 1''s army.
This would be pretty interesting in that players will try to design armies that THEY will be able to use in a tactic way and that MIGHT cause the other player to just completely lose it once he gains control of that army.

OR

Player 1 and Player 2 design their armies. A random roll is made. There''s a 50% chance that Player 1 will get to use his own army, and there''s a 50% chance he''ll have to use Player 2''s army.

DASHZERO: Nice idea. But it sounds a lot like ''unit cost'' which eventually always ends up in a ''this unit''s cost vs efficiency is best'' which means you''ll see that unit in nearly every battle.


Woohoo... I''m on day 4 on my C++ in 21 days course. %Another two weeks and I''ll be a master programmer!%

Silvermyst said: "...it sounds a lot like ''unit cost'' which eventually always ends up in a ''this unit''s cost vs efficiency is best'' which means you''ll see that unit in nearly every battle."
---
Uhhh, yes and no. I think you might be right when the dust settles, but there are some issues we haven''t touched on. Thinking about this some more:

If you can change the values of the units, their "icons" (tank, soldier, spaceship, gametoken, etc.) ends up being "camoflage".

Example: Game''s default INI has Tank (Offense=7, Armor=4) and Soldier (Offense=2, Armor=2). You could switch it to Tank (Offense=2, Armor=2) and Soldier (Offense=7, Armor=4). Now your soldier icons represent tank power...

The earlier post didn''t even address unit cost - how do you buy units? If there is a cost tied to each unit, Silvermyst is right, everyone would buff out the cheapest unit with maximum stats. Maybe you are charged the total number of tweak points spent on each unit to buy one - so in the default INI situation Tanks would cost $11 and in the tweaked version only $4. That still puts you back to optimizing on "Return on Investment" (ROI) - cost vs. efficiency. So, another cost system would have to be created to make this fun.

I am grasping at randomness as a possible evening factor, but that feels like it takes skill at strategy and throws it out the window...

I was thinking about something like Magic the Gathering, where you know what cards are in your deck, but they have been shuffled so that you are not sure exactly when you will get to use them. Maybe in this game, the soldier ALWAYS has to have at least one less Offense and one less Armor than the tank. (Rule: Tanks are stronger than Soldiers on their team.) But you could vary the values to create tanks that were super powerful and wimpy Soldiers, or Tanks that were barely better than Soldiers. Add something like the higher the number of points you spend on a unittype, the fewer you get in your army. (So maybe 3 supertanks and 20 wimpy Soldiers would take on 11 minimized tanks and 12 maxed soldiers.) Add to that some kind of delayed allocation (like having to draw cards in Magic) and it might get interesting - especially as you add units and rules. Add the Jeep and the Rule "Jeeps are the fastest unit".

So, when you see an enemy unit you can make some general assumptions. "Oh, that''s a tank - it is tough. Look! Jeep! Careful it is fast." But you don''t really know the exact values until you start going toe-to-toe.

Dash Zero
Credits: Fast Attack - Software Sorcery - Published by Sierra 1996

DASHZERO:

Ah, now I see where you''re going.

I had an idea similar to that; designing a system that would keep an opponent guessing.

I ended up with a system where each unit looked exactly the same, yet had different colors or slight differences (the units would be alien beings).

You, as the designer of the units, would know exactly what each unit could or couldn''t do. Yellow unit: flight capability. Red unit: breathes fire. Blue unit: casts frozen ice beam.

Your opponent would have to figure out what each of your units did DURING combat. The more diversity you would have in your team (the more colors), the harder it would be for the opponent to remember which unit did what.

I think the system you''re describing uses certain set rules within a system like this (tank can have power from 10-5, infantry can have power from 1-4. PowerInfantry>=PowerTank = false.)

What I like about systems like this, is that each battle is a new battle. And you wouldn''t even need the hundreds of different types of units. You could get by with even just 10 units. It would become almost like a chess game. You''d have to really determine your opponent''s unit''s strenghts and weaknesses as fast as you can and then react to the battle with that knowledge in mind.

Good ideas DashZero and Sylvermyst. I think that unit effectiveness should be an unknown until they are engaged for the first time. However, in a more realistic sense, other than a few minor variants, I think after a point, the enemy will realize what kind of unit they are up against. If a country tries to build too many differing types of units all the time, it taxes their resources....the Germans faced this problem in WWII with their bazillion diffrent models of Panzer tanks.

Also, although I intended the topic to be about game design in general, it''s gone off on a strategic slant...which is fine with me But I''d like to get everyone''s opinion on how exactly they define strategy.

I think the vast majority of people here see strategy as I define tactics. Tactics are the means and methods of carrying out a strategy. Tactics are the means to the end, and the strategy is the overall plan on how to get there USING tactics to fulfill those plans.

I think people tend to see strategy like this..."I see that my opponent has two Tank Z''s and 4 heavy infantry guarding that resource factory. If I use two mobile artillery pieces backed up by 3 light tanks, I should be able to beat his units". To me, that''s pure tactics. Yes, there''s some thought and planning, but it''s only on a limited basis and it''s still unit vs. unit thinking.

To me, strategy is thinking about the "big picture". Strategy is also about groups, the movements of groups to actualize the end goal. Strategy is not so much about defeating a unit, as it is about making yourself stronger, and your enemy weaker. What''s the difference? Well, for example, in RL, a commander may decide to use some mechanized infantry to slow down the advance of a main column of armored forces. Not to destroy them, but to delay and possibly disorganize them abit. He would do this for several reasons, perhaps to buy time for reinforcements, or perhaps to maneuver his own main armored column along his enemy''s flanks.

In a nutshell, unit vs. unit vs. battles are not what truly intrigue me. It''s how you use those units AND the capabilities they have to effect a victory by different means.

DAUNTLESS:

To me, strategy starts before the actual fight even begins.

What units will I produce, which ones will I send to which battle? What do I do after the battle is over? When do I retreat?

A strategy is like a gameplan before the actual game ever starts. During the game, you use tactics to achieve the goal of the strategy. You also use tactics to adapt to holes in your strategy.

Taking the 'many colored alien beings' idea:

Strategy would be:
I am going to use three different colored units. Yellow: fast but weak. Red: strong but slow. Blue: overall balanced.

The strategy would be to use the yellow units to locate and harass the enemy, use the red units to lay a trap and use the blue units as backup. The strategy would be:
Yellow units move and locate enemy. Harass enemy. When enemy counter attacks, retreat to position X. Red units, hide at position X. Blue units, stay behind yellow units as backup, but make sure to keep enough distance. When yellow units are attacked and have no means of retreat, attack enemy. When yellow units are retreating as planned to location X, run as fast as you can to location X but stay out of sight of enemy. Then, position behind red units. Once battle starts, do not engage until needed. When a group of red units is losing, assist them.

Tactics, as you mentioned, are just parts of a strategy. If drinking water to stay alive is the strategy, then moving to water, putting hand in water, lifting hand to mouth... those are all tactics.

Tactic of yellow unit:
Move out and spread out and locate enemy. Once enemy is located, contact other yellow units and once enough units are gathered, surprise attack the enemy at a weak spot. Make sure to make room for your retreat. Also make sure to keep enough energy to be able to run back to location X. Keep harassing enemy until enemy follows. Then move to location X. Once red units attack following enemy from flanks, fall back until needed. Assist only where red units are winning a fight.

Tactic of red unit:
Move into position at location X. Hide. Wait until yellow units pass and attack enemy when they are running into trap. Attack from both flanks. Attack with full force. Do NOT retreat at any cost. You can count on support from blue units when a certain group of red units is in trouble. You can count on support from yellow units when you are winning a fight.

Tactic of blue unit:
Once yellow units locate enemy, move to position in between enemy position and location X. When yellow units are somehow surrounded and can't escape, attack enemy forces and create a hole for yellow units to escape. When yellow units are retreating, move to location X asap and hide behind red units.
When a group of red units is losing a fight, attack the enemy at that position asap.


Edited by - Silvermyst on July 31, 2001 1:30:11 PM

I''m sorry Silver - and this is def no flame - but you are still talking tactics.

Strategy is looking at a much bigger picture. For example the battle of the Ardennes was tactics. The drive to Berlin was strategy.

Strategy is far more looking at the economic power you have to produce units and the way in which those units will be used to achieve final victory. So do you build U boats or panzers? It''s a strategic decision on how you see the war going. Do you attack on the left or right flank using your tank reserves is a tactical decision that affects the outcome of one battle.


So when you start your post you are right. Strategy starts before the actual fight begins. But a strategic goal is do I go for Berlin or the Rhur. A tactical goal is do I go for battalion X or battalion Y or hill A or B.

Unit effectiveness may vary. An two man infantry squad with an anti-tank weapon that is hidden in woods with a good line of retreat can take out your super tank.