What I wonder is how you can create the underdog army situation if all you consider is plan-counterplan? What I see is a problem is that, much like rock/paper/scissors, there is no set in stone moves to counteract other moves. So, given that you have an army which is inferior in quantity or even quality to an enemy, how is it possible to beat them? I simply think this can not be done if all that is taken into consideration is an action/reaction type of gameplay.

There is far more to strategy (in my conception) than that. Here is another problem...when all you consider is the end result of an action (say, attack) what of the means to get there? In martial arts, quite often it is one thing to know how to counter move, and another to actually implement it. Just because you see an opening in an opponent''s defense, and know you should do a shiho nage throw doesn''t mean that you are able or capable of actually committing that move.

In martial arts, you have to start small. In the Choy Li Fut class I took, we did 3 months of JUST stance training. That''s all we did for three months...no kicks, no punches, no blocks. Just 3 grueling months of horse stance, diagonal, cat and arrow stances.

So in my game, I want to take away all of these things that are simply taken for granted by the player. The victory will go to the player that can maximize the effectiveness of troops as well as formulate good battle plans to defeat the enemy. It takes both. It does no good to have grandiose plans if your army is incapable of implementing them. George Patton once remarked, "do not give great orders, give orders that can be understood".

I can tell that my leadership idea is not too popular But I think I can make it fun in it''s own way. But perhaps that begs its own question. But before I get started down that topic (which I will post in another thread) I think that organizing your forces and learning the principles of leadership can be an interesting aspect of gameplay.

If you play a multiplayer version of an RTS game, you can assign different players different units, and assign an overall captian. In this sense, you practice REAL leadership skills, and not the management of AI commanders. If you play a single player game, each AI commander could have their own personalities that you would have to manage and train...as well as motivate your troops trust in your judgement and skills.

A problem with leadership is that you are talking about things like charisma, respect and other social qualities that don''t translate to games or game AI. I suspect if you tried to implement such things you would end up creating a game where the goal is to find and exploit AI problems.

I''m want to fight a war, not baby sit these soliders.

Shogun isn''t completely realistic. Neither is what you''re suggesting. If you flee in the middle of the battle, first thing I do as a general is to court martial you and make sure you will never be a part of the army ever again. And as for the fedual Japan like in Shogun, it''s perfectly reasonable to lose your head just because you fleed the battle even if your side won.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
If you play a multiplayer version of an RTS game, you can assign different players different units, and assign an overall captian. In this sense, you practice REAL leadership skills, and not the management of AI commanders. If you play a single player game, each AI commander could have their own personalities that you would have to manage and train...as well as motivate your troops trust in your judgement and skills.

Exactly, I don''t see why people try to improve the AI and incorperate it into the single player game when you get all that plus more if you just add the multiplayer to the game.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
I can tell that my leadership idea is not too popular

Argh! Don''t ya hate it when that happens.

quote:
But I think I can make it fun in it''s own way. But perhaps that begs its own question. But before I get started down that topic (which I will post in another thread) I think that organizing your forces and learning the principles of leadership can be an interesting aspect of gameplay.

As someone who''s been interested in the idea of a player being able to use leadership skills as a starship captain, I sympathize with your idea. But I just can''t envision what you do as a leader that''s not a bunch of responses to canned situations.

quote:
If you play a multiplayer version of an RTS game, you can assign different players different units, and assign an overall captian. In this sense, you practice REAL leadership skills, and not the management of AI commanders.

I think the problem with this is twofold: You''ve seen games, I''m sure, where you manage a bunch of people in an office situation or whatever. A lot of this comes down to micromanaging stats (don''t mix a slob with neatfreak; or don''t yell at the timid mouse character or their morale will go down; heh, or don''t fire the silent, moody guy, whatever)

The other part of the problem is that the people you''re managing aren''t real. Your options for creatively motivating them, or negotiating, practically require a human being.

It''s a tough one.



--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote by Dauntless:

quote: What I wonder is how you can create the underdog army situation if all you consider is plan-counterplan? What I see is a problem is that, much like rock/paper/scissors, there is no set in stone moves to counteract other moves. So, given that you have an army which is inferior in quantity or even quality to an enemy, how is it possible to beat them? I simply think this can not be done if all that is taken into consideration is an action/reaction type of gameplay.

Dauntless, seriously, really, have you been watching Andromeda? Sci-fi show featuring Kevin Sorbo.
www.andromedatv.com I think.
Capt. Dylan Hunt, true, he always wins(it''s his show) but he''s the perfect example.
Given your experience with martial arts I would have thought it''d just be the way you think, but that quote makes me think otherwise. What does the enemy want? Action/reaction does suck and if you play that way you will get beat, especially in chess, because if the enemy has the smallest amount of intelligence you''re doing what he wants.
You don''t ask "What do I to win?" you ask "Why is he fighting?" and then "Why is he fighting this way?". A concept so basic it made it into DragonballZ, to paraphrase Piccolo when speaking of Vegeta and a couple of other times as well, ''He''s different. He''s focused. He has no wants, no desires. Nothing to exploit. He''s the perfect warrior.''

I guess I took some leeway with your quote and perhaps you know what I''m talking about, designing a game with enough depth to illustrate that point is a challenge. That''s one thing that separates bad and good RTS''s and space sims. Notice how the good ones will have a map of the game world and you''re shown the course you''ve taken throughout the game and mission briefings will have a good explanation of why you''re attacking and what that mission''s effects are supposed to be, which does happen in real life because there may be missions where the stated objective cannot be achieved but the effect can be duplicated.

This is why heroes in movies have trouble with zombies and machines, they don''t care about being shot. All the training for using a gun suddenly doesn''t work as well because the enemy isn''t someone who''s trying to shoot the hero.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
What I wonder is how you can create the underdog army situation if all you consider is plan-counterplan? What I see is a problem is that, much like rock/paper/scissors, there is no set in stone moves to counteract other moves. So, given that you have an army which is inferior in quantity or even quality to an enemy, how is it possible to beat them? I simply think this can not be done if all that is taken into consideration is an action/reaction type of gameplay.

Plan/counterplan need not be action/reaction. A good commander will realise that his enemy''s actions are essentially unpredictable and take these into account, and look for win-win strategies, like in chess when you place a knight in such a way as to threaten two important pieces at the same time. In a similar vein, a good commander knows how to recognise such traps being laid and learns how to avoid them - although it is not always possible.

Even with an inferior force it should be possible to win with strategy alone - it is a case of understanding your army''s weakness and adopting a strategy to minimize that weakness. Of course, the smaller and weaker the force, the harder it is to find a winning strategy, but that is to be expected.

Like several people have hinted, I don''t disagree that in real life, good leadership is a very important factor. The problem is presenting the detailed aspects of it to the player in a fun way. Take your martial arts example - like you say, there is a great deal of training and discipline involved in learning a martial art, but do you see any of that in Street Fighter II? Would you want to? Would spending 30 hours of game time practicing the cat stance before you even get near a fight make the game more fun?

Of course, if you know a way to build up the leadership aspect in an interesting way, then you can ignore that last paragraph.

"Plan/counterplan need not be action/reaction"
I believe that they are the same thing.
If I plan to move to point A, and think you will move to point B to counter that, I move a tenth of my troops to point C and make them much more visible to distract you from my real moves. That is a plan, and I am predicting your reaction to my action. As for troop leadership, it is the same thing.

If I had been leading well, every person on my army would know that I wouldnt needlessly throw their lives away. Thus, they would know that when I say "this is it, we stand here or lose", they know that defending this location is worth their lives and might come up with something surprising that ends up actually winning. Also, being the underdog does NOT mean you can''t when using only plan/counterplan. Unless the enemy is perfect, he has some weakness that can be exploited. Perhaps guard rotations at night are weak, and you can sneak ten men into the enemy camps and plant bombs all over the place and destroy all their equipment so that when they wake up from the explosions, half the army is dead and all their transportation and artillery is blown up. Then it would be their thousand fists versus your hundred guns.

The planning is not only against the enemy, but also ''against'' one''s own troops. Without being able to control them well, the great plans in your head will never amount to anything. You must understand what your enemy is doing and why, but you must also understand what your army is doing, how they feel, and why.


"I believe; therefore, it is." -True Perception
"The Requested Information Is Unknown Or Classified" -Anonymous

quote: Original post by Extrarius
"Plan/counterplan need not be action/reaction"
I believe that they are the same thing.
If I plan to move to point A, and think you will move to point B to counter that, I move a tenth of my troops to point C and make them much more visible to distract you from my real moves. That is a plan, and I am predicting your reaction to my action. As for troop leadership, it is the same thing.

I disagree that they are the same thing. Plan/Counterplan implies forethought and anticipation. A good plan also doubles as a counterplan for what you anticipate your opponent''s plan to be. Finally, countering your opponent''s plan need not invalidate your own plan.

Action/reaction on the other hand, implies very limited forethought. The more you can force your opponent to rely on action/reaction rather than plan/counterplan the more likely you are to do well - your own example is one in which you are trying to get me to react rather than counterplan. The best response I could make to such a scenario is not to immediately send all my men to squash your troops at point C (since that is reactionary behaviour, which is exactly what you are trying to achieve) but to adapt my existing plan to compensate for the fact that a significant portion of your force may be sitting at point C instead of where I might have expected it.

So you are saying that plan/counterplain is thinking about proper action/reaction and figuring out what to do without committing to it? I included thinking and predicting (foresight) when I say action/reaction, because acting instinctively is stupid and is not a good tactic when one is dealing with ''bigger pictures''. However, it isn''t hard to think too long either, as delaying can be fatal to an entire group of units. Its just personal meaning as there is no ''official definition'' (afaik), so no reason to argue about it. I belive that what you mean when you think of ''action/reaction'' (acting without much thought) is what I use the words ''acting instinctively'' for.


"I believe; therefore, it is." -True Perception
"The Requested Information Is Unknown Or Classified" -Anonymous