Flareloc:

Good idea, but then it''s not really a rock paper scissors environment anymore Obviously no game is as simplistic as having 3 units, or even just ten units in the game. The ultimate purpose of RPS is to create a situation where anyone unit is always superior to at least one other unit type, which is in turn always beaten by one or more other types of units. In it''s most simplistic form, there is exactly one unit that it can beat 100% of the time, and there is one other unit which in turn can beat it 100% of the time.

And therein lies my grudge against RPS. There should be situation where it is not 100% certain and/or there should be cases where other units can beat it, or it can beat other units. Just as in my chess example ANY unit can beat ANY unit at any time (except as I mentioned a king can never kill a queen) which I believe offers a much deeper level of thinking than what RPS offers.

Sometimes the effectiveness of units depends greatly on environment or range, which I don''t mind, because then its not a 100% assured thing. For example, if you have a line of archers backed up against a river fighting against infantry, they will do great until the remaining infantry make it to their ranks. In real war, Cavalry became quite formidable against infantry, until the Square formation was discovered (which in turn was a artillery man''s paradise). But if the cavalry could cath the infantry in line or in disarray, it was usually game over for the infantry.

So alot of what I find irritating abour RPS is the certainty with which players can formulate their plans. There is no element of chance, there is little situational awareness, and there is little danger of coming up against an enemy with powers and capabilities they did not expect (I''m sure the first southerners that went up against Spencer Rifle equipped infantry wished they hadn''t). That''s my whole argument really. That RPS is a very thin veneer of strategical thinking. It is actually much much closer to tactical thinking than strategy. So if you want a tactical style game, then I suppose RPS is okay, since Tactics tends to be a little more cut and dry than strategy is.

One of the points I tried to make was that it need not be a one-to-one correlation between superior and inferior, and it could also be situational.

If this were not a gaming forum, I''d be inclined to agree that R/P/S is a very narrow field of tactical information, but games are limited to implementability of both mechanics and interface.

Randomness is not particularly desirable in a game because it obviates or at least mitigates the need for strategy, rather than reinforcing its need.

And if it''s not random, then it is deterministic, and can be expressed using something similar to the formulae I gave.

Btw, randomness will always be the case regardless of whether it''s explicitly programmed in. You can''t be certain of the opponent''s moves. If your two forces are approaching each other, he could stop at any time to wait for you, try to flank you, charge ahead, or anything less dramatic(rearrange his formation so that his archers are behind his footsoldiers or some such minor maneuver).

I''m pretty sure that there isn''t a cut and dry R/P/S game. You''d have to have one shot kills or invulnerability to get the kind of incredulous advantage you get in the real R/P/S game, and that some of you seem to imply that is implicitly expressed by the words Rock, Paper, Scissors. Most games aren''t that striking.

I notice a vast majority of computer gamers do not like the idea of randomness, feeling that it takes away from the intellectual process of strategical thinking. I think the feeling that a random factor makes plans useless. Well, in a way this is correct, but by a matter of degrees.

Most other gamers of different mediums rely heavily on chance. Most card games, most boardgames and most miniature games all have an element of chance in them and yet gamers don''t really complain about it too much.

This really is the crux of my problem with RPS styles of balancing. They are formulaic and once you have figured out the best combinations of units to defeat other types of units, then all it becomes is planning. It becomes a game of production rather than strategy. How is this?

1) Because games have fixed unit types, players will quickly discover their strengths and weaknesses. Even technology trees just make more powerful units that players will know the capabilities of.
2) Since there is little if any random element, players can calculate with precise certainty the outcome of a battle.
3) Since there are few if any external factors like morale, leadership, terrain or logistics (when have you seen a unit run out of ammo?) the player is once again free to calculate with near 100% certainty of the outcome
4) Players have absolute control of his units, know what his units know, and always have access to his units, thereby his units will carry out his plans without fail.

Now, I admit that I am looking for a realistic game, but how in the world do any of these 4 points correlate to the real world?

So how does a person play most RTS games now in strategical thinking, what are the strategical thinking in RPS style RTS''s?

1) Get as many resources as possible
2) Determining what kinds of forces your opponent is using
3) Making sure your factories produce enough units to counter your opponents forces to acheive goal#1.

Since you already have a formulaic certainty of what unit beats what other units, really only step#2 is necessary so that in turn you can do step#3.

The infamous tank rush is an attempt to circumvent this loop by making sure your opponent doesn''t have time at all to produce any units so that step#2 is unnecessary. The only real challenge, and it is a tactical one, not a stretgic one, is sometimes determining what the best mix of units is to beat another group of mixed units. But herein lies the infamous "click fest" syndrome.

I wish to do away with any sort of formulaic determination of outcomes. The unknown outcome is something that should always be on the mind of a general. I''m sure the French thought that they were going to kick the Vietnamese Army''s butt at Dien Bien Phu, the combined Franch and Spanish fleets were going to crush Lord Admiral Nelson''s fleet, or the Germans were going to destroy Stalingrad.

I don''t see randomness as a disadvantage or taking away from strategy, in fact I see it as adding an extra dimension. Nothing is a sure bet except death and taxes Some people may feel that luck will rob them of a victory that should have been theirs, but the sign of a good general is one that can take forune''s whims and roll with the punches. That''s another important reason why a true campaign mode is necessary too, so that just one lost battle won''t necessarily lose the war (unless you put all of your eggs in one basket like the French did at Dien Bien Phu).

Is randomness required for this? To illustrate:
You have an archer on a hill, the enemy sends a guy with a club at you. You KNOW he will never live long enough to reach you.

If you throw in a strong random element, maybe he will (if rarely) live long enough to strike the archer, but that would frustrate the player and feel artificial.

But, say weather has an effect. Your archer is still on the hill, the dork with the club is still charging. Throw in a heavy wind. Because of environmental effects, you''re no longer confident you''ll be able to take him down before he reaches you.

What''s needed isn''t more random chance, just more realistic variables.

Add issues like morale, differing attack/defense values based on angle of attack (as suggest by Kylotan) and more and you get a situation which is still deterministic, but even the greatest general is going to be unable to quantify all the variables to the point where he can say ''I will definitely win''. He may be very confident, but if he underestimates his opponent, he may find his army wiped out. If he plans to heavily use archers and ignores weather effects, he will lose. If he plans to use cavalry but fails to take into account the rough broken terrain he''ll have to charge across, again he may lose.




Stay Casual,

Ken
Drunken Hyena

I know what you mean Drunken, but take a look at my new thread for more ideas on including randomness.

There are simply variables that you can not take into account for. How about accuracy or weather for example? Like you said, you can at least get to the point where a commander goes, "okay, I''m pretty sure that things are going to turn out laike this", but to me that''s good enough. That''s better than the system that is currently in place. What surprises me the most though is that most tabletop games already have a pretty complex random variable element in them (hence the need for dice), but computer games to my knowledge don''t have this. I suppose it''s possible that they do buried within their code, but I haven''t seen confirmation one way or the other.

But I definitely agree that including more variables is very important. The more variables that you take into account, the more you can exclude randomness as an element. My issue really isn''t to take control away from players, but to make them realize that the possibility is there, and it is up to them to minimize that randomness or make a decision based on those risks.