
December 28th, 2002, 12:35 PM
|
 |
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,806
Thanks: 54
Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts
|
|
Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races
Quote:
Originally posted by Gryphin:
Pvk, Suicide Junkie, Thontob,
You all say it so much betterer than me.
Thinking back, I have played games simulating warfare since 1975. I can only think of a few exceptions where there was not in effect some form of a Play Balancing System.
Rock, Paper, Scissors component selection
In a WWII game the main elements were Infantry, Armor, Artillery. I’m over simplifying here. Each had distinct advantages and each disadvantages. It really came down to selecting the right units for the job and deploying them correctly.
I can also remember the endless "competitive discussions" on whether this or that was "Realistic". Since many of the games were "real world" simulations such as WRG's Ancients or their WWII (forget the name) miniatures game there was a strong emphasis on making them “more realistic”. So we changed the rules or added more. In SEIV we don’t have many options to change the hard code. We can Mod and make Gentleman’s Agreements on restricting the use of a perceived exploit.
|
See, realistic WW2 combined arms tactics (another gaming obsession of mine) is a great example of something I would never describe as "rock/paper/scissors". Yes, any one element alone is going to have exploitable handicaps, but the relationships between them are detailed and make sense, and it is not a case of A beats B beats C which beats A. Some things are better than others in different circumstances, and different elements' strengths and weaknesses can complement each other IF used in ways that make sense. That's VASTLY more complex, interesting, and sensible than "rock/paper/scissors" - by many orders of magnitude.
OTOH, I won't ever forget talking with a game developer gushing about his latest RTS and proudly mentioning the "rock/paper/scissors" "principle", and the frequently-mentioned an utterly idiotic set-up (no doubt from some wretched old game theory textbook written by a non-gamer academic, and/or the 80's game The Ancient Art of War) where there are spearmen, swordsmen, and bowmen, and spearmen beat swordsmen who beat bowmen who beat spearmen. Which, as a fan of realistic and interesting ancient/medieval tactical games, I would say is utter bunk, not to mention being completely uninteresting.
Ooops, I'm ranting in the middle of the night about my pet peeve again. 'scuze me.
PvK
[ December 28, 2002, 10:36: Message edited by: PvK ]
|