Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Moderator: Slitherine Core

Post Reply
uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by uneducated »

Many developers distinguish games into categories like this. Do you think the distinction is valid?
In what sense is there strategy which is absent from games that might be classified as Time-Management?
A RTS (Real Time Strategy) game, such as World of Warcraft or Stellaris, often can be paused. What sort of game is it then, if the management of time is removed from the equation?

Some time-management games, for example the excellent Free Software game, BAR (Beyond All Reason, a spiritual successor to "Total Annihilation"

Code: Select all

https://www.beyondallreason.info/
) see themselves as strategy games because the strategy is in deciding which tech path to follow, and how to adjust production according to circumstances as they develop. Part of the excitement is the intense and exhausting pressure of making quick decisions. How could developers build more strategy into such games, and have it proportionately less dependent on time?

Many Slitherine games are TBS (Turn Based Strategy). The element of time is still present, but it doesn't dictate the pace of play. Time is chunked into turns.

I am just curious about what could make games more strategic. I have one idea, which I shall post later, as I would rather hear responses to my question than an answer.
Last edited by zakblood on Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: killed a live link
PoorOldSpike
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1583
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:06 pm
Location: Plymouth, England

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by PoorOldSpike »

The problem with real-time games is that they can become mad click-fests if you have to continually micro-manage too many units.
It works best if you only have to manage a limited number of units so that you can issue orders such as "go here, go there, attack, defend" etc then sit back munching your popcorn and watching how things develop, stepping in again later to issue more orders if and when the situation requires.
uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by uneducated »

PoorOldSpike wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:07 pm The problem with real-time games is that they can become mad click-fests if you have to continually micro-manage too many units.
It works best if you only have to manage a limited number of units so that you can issue orders such as "go here, go there, attack, defend" etc then sit back munching your popcorn and watching how things develop, stepping in again later to issue more orders if and when the situation requires.
Set-and-Forget
I think you are right, PoorOldSpike. The click-fest is not really strategy. "Set-and-Forget" is more like what I think most people see as Strategy: deploy your units, then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn". There don't seem to be any games like that though, where you setup the beginning and then see how things unravel. I think you could call this part of strategy "disposition".

Priorities
Another aspect of strategy which is seldom seriously modelled is setting the priorities for play. For example, "minimize losses in combat" might be one end of strategic decision making, another might be preserving crops or infrastructure in combat. Most strategic games seem to be just the same as each other. "Capture victory hex" or something like that. Priorities seem to be more about the way you do things, than what you do.

Doctrine
In some games, like Hearts of Iron, you can claim a doctrine in a tech tree and that advances your combat ability, but developing a doctrine is a very strategic matter and the training involved is something that occurs well before the combat begins. It seems to be a missing element in so-called strategy games. The education of the people involved, be they recruits or the officers or industrialists and education system are just not there in any games at all.

Training
Most so-called strategy games represent training as "building a new unit". It is dreadfully simplistic. This is an area where real strategy could be developed. For example, modelling how units should try to respond in a given combat scenario. The best sort of system I have seen for this is probably Football Manager, where you develop tactics and train to these between games, and then see how they unfold on match day. Different sorts of players respond better to different training.

Context
Strategy can also be found in the wider context for a battle. Having some upshot for whether team A or B wins, whether they lose badly or not, could have some strategic consequence, on a wider map, on future morale, on recruiting etc. This is generally neglected in games.

I just hope people can think of ways to model strategy more in games and make them more thoughtful and consequential.
Edmon
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:50 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by Edmon »

The older I get, the less I want to play a game that has an APM test as part of it's core game-play loop...

Just look at Starcraft... the APM test that is that games mechanics mean that once your past 28 you've got almost zero chance of remaining a tournament winning player. I mean, Flash (Lee Young-ho) is widely considered to be the best player the game has ever had ever and even he could not consistently win after 27ish (and now he's gone to the military at 29, as is the policy in Korea).

When I get into a game, I like to delude myself into thinking I could be "the best" with enough practice and understanding. Real-time has a way of slapping it's hard realities on my tired wrists... lol.
uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by uneducated »

Edmon wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:54 pm APM test as part of it's core game-play loop...
APM?
Edmon
Slitherine
Slitherine
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:50 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by Edmon »

uneducated wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:48 pm
Edmon wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:54 pm APM test as part of it's core game-play loop...
APM?
Actions per minute. Doing some easy, repetitive task constantly and throughout the game and that task mattering.

For example: If you task was to draw a picture, but every minute you had to do 10 press-ups, the press-ups are an APM test. If you don't do the press-ups on time or forget to do them, we start taking colours away from your paints or adding mistakes to your art.
uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by uneducated »

Edmon wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 4:29 pm
uneducated wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:48 pm
Edmon wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:54 pm APM test as part of it's core game-play loop...
APM?
Actions per minute. Doing some easy, repetitive task constantly and throughout the game and that task mattering.

For example: If you task was to draw a picture, but every minute you had to do 10 press-ups, the press-ups are an APM test. If you don't do the press-ups on time or forget to do them, we start taking colours away from your paints or adding mistakes to your art.
That is a brilliant explanation of APM!

I think Slitherine should step back and take an academic look at what constitutes strategy in all its manifestations.
A comprehensive catalogue of these should be compiled.
Slitherine should then systematically proceed through this catalogue and brainstorm how these various aspects of strategy could be modelled digitally in a game.
How these elements of strategy might possibly be combined and interact should also be examined.
A game already in the Slitherine stable which has potential to incorporate as much of these strategic models should be selected.
Paper versions of the strategic modelling ought then to be used in conjunction with the chosen game for testing.
Hopefully the testing would be fruitful and a new version of the old game could be produced showcasing the additional strategic dimensions.
Roll-out similar strategic support to other games in the Slitherine stable.
Work in partnership with a promising game developer to build from scratch a thoroughly strategic game, using lessons learned from the earlier work.

As things are at the moment, I don't think enough is happening to advance strategy gaming. The industry seems to be lapsing into Hollywood style repetition, sameiness, "Batman" "Batman 2" "Batman 3" "Batman 4"...

To do this properly would take some reading. It would take some study. It would also probably best involve liaising with strategists in the military. I think Slitherine should introduce themselves to various military academies and staff colleges and the staff there and put the Slitherine case to them. I am sure many involved would be very happy to provide some guidance and could hopefully save a lot of time in compiling a catalogue. I think this should have happened years ago, and an ongoing programme of exchanges, visits and talks should be happening.
MrsWargamer
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by MrsWargamer »

The problem with RTS, is the first word. It isn't real time in the game. Merely actual time to the human playing it.

If in the human's reality, the game has run for 5 minutes, it is ONLY 5 minutes. But if during those 5 actual minutes, the game has simulated 5 months, it's hardly real eh.

RTS, best used as training tools for grade school teachers to teach them how to many 30 individuals at the same time all who want to do either nothing or be the center of attention. And often will pick the most inexplicable reasons for anything, and often do that choice in the most inexplicable manner.

Turns are not more real, or less real. They just ensure that you get the best most controllable interface with the experience. If I know a turn represents a specific duration of time, fine, I won't question why units take X turns to obey my instructions.

Pausable RTS games, are not RT. You simply get to speed up or slow down your turns. There's nothing stopping you from using a frenzy style of playing, but you can hit the pause button off and often as you like.

There is more distinction between hexes and areas than there is between RTS and TBS.

Strategy, the word, is more linguistically thought of as an overall objective, a goal. And Operation is a large sector of a total setting while tactical is a very localized experience.

Tactical games can have strategy levels. But eventually, you need to realize they're just words.

My main love of operational, is it ditches research and politics. My main love of tactical, is it is not so supply echelon, just the actual fighting. And Squad Level is getting to drive the tank around and look at the terrain tree by tree.

But occasionally grand strategy can be fun. If it mirrors the human stupidity of political choices adequately. Stalingrad was all about the name, and one hysterical leader's obsession with it. But a wargamer doesn't need to be an egotistical idiot and destroy a veteran military formation. In grand strategy, I wipe out Malta even if it means I wipe out the entire airborne. Forget the cost, the Allies lose the middle east and the war is a massive loss for the allies.
I CAN be reached
email me at sukunai.ni.yori@hotmail.com
HoustonRogers
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Private First Class - Opel Blitz
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:05 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by HoustonRogers »

uneducated wrote: Tue Nov 30, 2021 10:38 pm
PoorOldSpike wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 12:07 pm The problem with real-time games is that they can become mad click-fests if you have to continually micro-manage too many units.
It works best if you only have to manage a limited number of units so that you can issue orders such as "go here, go there, attack, defend" etc then sit back munching your popcorn and watching how things develop, stepping in again later to issue more orders if and when the situation requires.
Set-and-Forget
I think you are right, PoorOldSpike. The click-fest is not really strategy. "Set-and-Forget" is more like what I think most people see as Strategy: deploy your units, then "sit back and enjoy the popcorn". There don't seem to be any games like that though, where you setup the beginning and then see how things unravel. I think you could call this part of strategy "disposition".

Priorities
Another aspect of strategy which is seldom seriously modelled is setting the priorities for play. For example, "minimize losses in combat" might be one end of strategic decision making, another might be preserving crops or infrastructure in combat. Most strategic games seem to be just the same as each other. "Capture victory hex" or something like that. Priorities seem to be more about the way you do things, than what you do.

Doctrine
In some games, like Hearts of Iron, you can claim a doctrine in a tech tree and that advances your combat ability, but developing a doctrine is a very strategic matter and the training involved is something that occurs well before the combat begins. It seems to be a missing element in so-called strategy games. The education of the people involved, be they recruits or the officers or industrialists and education system are just not there in any games at all.

Training
Most so-called strategy games represent training as "building a new unit". It is dreadfully simplistic. This is an area where real strategy could be developed. For example, modelling how units should try to respond in a given combat scenario. The best sort of system I have seen for this is probably Football Manager, where you develop tactics and train to these between games, and then see how they unfold on match day. Different sorts of players respond better to different training.

Context
Strategy can also be found in the wider context for a battle. Having some upshot for whether team A or B wins, whether they lose badly or not, could have some strategic consequence, on a wider map, on future morale, on recruiting etc. This is generally neglected in games.

I just hope people can think of ways to model strategy more in games and make them more thoughtful and consequential.
Good classification, I agree.
uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Strategy vs Time-Management Games

Post by uneducated »

Thanks, HoustonRogers. I was reading everything above and was thinking, "This bloke really knows what he is talking about, I hope more people listen to him and that he gains some influence in the games industry." Then I realized I was reading text you quoted from my earlier post! :)
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”