"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[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.

[SamuraiProgrammer]

WRG Ancients

Talk about problems with game balance.

Try taking the sea people vs Alexander's Macedonians (1500 points each).

(Actually I loved WRG ancients. It just took toooooo long to paint those lead suckers.)

[ December 28, 2002, 05:35: Message edited by: SamuraiProgrammer ]

[PvK]

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 ]

[SamuraiProgrammer]

I am one of the people who have used the Rock/Paper/Scissors analogy. I would like to clarify the statement by saying it this way:

This game is about figuring out what your opponent is up to and countering it.

[geoschmo]

PvK, you are taking the RPS thing way too seriously. It's an analogy. Nobody is saying SEIV is just like RPS in all ways. There are no RPS forums. There is no PBW for RPS. There are no RPS Mods.
RPS balance mod: See if I hold my hand like this, it's a stapler. Stapler beats paper.

Geoschmo

[ December 28, 2002, 14:38: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Fyron]

I think you are missing the point of an analogy. It does not say that A is B, it says that A is similar to B in some way. There is a huge room for difference between A and B. SE4 is not RPS, it is just vaguely similar in one single way, in that there is no uber-tactic. All tactics have counter-tactics, but it is not as simple as RPS.

[PvK]

Yeah, you guys are basically right - I'm bemoaning the term, which has the wrong associations for me, and nothing you folks are intending. So, this is not the best forum for whining about it.

The expression "Rock/Paper/Scissors" can be interpreted so many ways, that it's nearly meaningless unless accompanied by a more specific discussion, which here it almost always is. I guess it mainly bugs me because I have seen so many game industry professionals who seem to be dumping millions of game dev bucks into lame repetetive designs according to moronic adherence to formulae. Formulaic RTS + primitive RPS = crapware from heck, more often than not.

PvK