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.