MBTI and strategic tastes

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I'm so horrible at keeping up in Real-time Strategy. I stick to Turn-based Games when I can.

I think the reason I don't like RTS as much as other strategy games is that part of the skill is reflex/twitch based. It dilutes the strategy aspect. Of course I still think strategy board games are better than strategy computer games. Board games are designed from the ground up to be multiplayer. Strategy computer games either try to balance both single and multiplayer in the same system or they simply have multiplayer as an afterthought.

 

[Kra]

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Supreme Commander : Forged Alliance in this thread. I'm not well-versed in it's multiplayer yet, but it has quite a few things that I like about it, like the volatile structure issue, as well as the switch in focus from limited resource allocation to actual resource vs production strategy.

My tactic is to generally fortify my initial base ASAP, then begin work on offensive forces. From that point, invade and hold a point long enough to establish a frontline with tower defenses and shielding. Then I repair, reproduce, and wash rinse repeat. Standard procedure really, but I do like to maintain a flexible force.

I also manage my air superiority fighters' patrol routes rather extensively.

 

[dorcus0]

I think the reason I don't like RTS as much as other strategy games is that part of the skill is reflex/twitch based. It dilutes the strategy aspect. Of course I still think strategy board games are better than strategy computer games. Board games are designed from the ground up to be multiplayer. Strategy computer games either try to balance both single and multiplayer in the same system or they simply have multiplayer as an afterthought.

At the top levels, there's a bit of build-order poker (the first 90 seconds might be rocks-paper-scissors).
But strategy boils down to guessing games and the metagame - you counter what you think your opponent would do.

On the other hand, it's generally tactical ability that determines the winner of the game. Can you micromanage your forces more effectively than your opponent can while not neglecting your base? Do you know when you can stop watching battles? Can you handle two, or maybe even three, threats at once? Strategy is relatively easy to master, compared to tactics (which takes practice).

I'll have to disagree on computer RTS's being designed mostly for single-player. Balanced factions are essential to an RTS, so they are made with multiplayer in mind. Single-player balancing isn't as important for RTS's, because it's really easy to fix.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

At the top levels, there's a bit of build-order poker (the first 90 seconds might be rocks-paper-scissors).
But strategy boils down to guessing games and the metagame - you counter what you think your opponent would do.

On the other hand, it's generally tactical ability that determines the winner of the game. Can you micromanage your forces more effectively than your opponent can while not neglecting your base? Do you know when you can stop watching battles? Can you handle two, or maybe even three, threats at once? Strategy is relatively easy to master, compared to tactics (which takes practice).

Yeah you've got it right. It's not really about strategy which is my beef. And the tactical aspect is dependent upon reflexes. Why not just play a FPS? The strategy is something of an illusion.

I'll have to disagree on computer RTS's being designed mostly for single-player. Balanced factions are essential to an RTS, so they are made with multiplayer in mind. Single-player balancing isn't as important for RTS's, because it's really easy to fix.

This depends on the RTS, but even a good RTS is more about twitch than strategy. Turn based strategy computer games aren't good for multiplayer either from my experience. Board games are built from the ground up for multi-player strategy, so they tend to be the best for it. Board games can't simulate the fast pace of a computer game, so instead they focus purely on the strategy aspect. This is why I prefer board games for strategy. I personally consider a pure strategy focus to be a strength even if a twitch game is going to sell a lot more.

 

[dorcus0]

Yeah you've got it right. It's not really about strategy which is my beef. And the tactical aspect is dependent upon reflexes. Why not just play a FPS? The strategy is something of an illusion.

There is strategy in just about every game, including FPS's and (believe it or not) fighting games. RTS's are just a bit more complex and a lot more multitasking. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the strategy is an illusion though; it does exist.

This depends on the RTS, but even a good RTS is more about twitch than strategy. Turn based strategy computer games aren't good for multiplayer either from my experience. Board games are built from the ground up for multi-player strategy, so they tend to be the best for it. Board games can't simulate the fast pace of a computer game, so instead they focus purely on the strategy aspect. This is why I prefer board games for strategy. I personally consider a pure strategy focus to be a strength even if a twitch game is going to sell a lot more.

Turn-based strategy games are the same whether it's on a computer or on a real-life board. Chess is chess, whether on a computer or real life. But RTS's are played in REAL TIME. That means that, reflexes do make a difference. At the top levels, everyone knows the good strategies, and no one has a strategy advantage for long. So, because strategy doesn't make that much of a difference, reflexes do. Basically, strategy and micro separates the beginners from the intermediate, but it's the micro that separates the good from the best.

You might want to try out Dawn of War, that game is pretty slow-paced by RTS standards. Although, when it boils right down to it, reflexes make the difference.

 

[tsumatachi_san]

Defensive or mimicry.

I try to send out as few troops as possible on games like 'Total War' etc. and hold the rest back for backup or defense in case the enemy send more out against be from a different direction.

I also play this way in chess. I tend to mimic my opponent until they fall out of their usual pattern of play (I normally watch them play first before going against them) and then I play defensively and to the last (as seen the two times I had a couple of pawns and a King left and I managed to hold my own for over half an hour XD).

I love strategy games though, it really exercises your mind

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

There is strategy in just about every game, including FPS's and (believe it or not) fighting games. RTS's are just a bit more complex and a lot more multitasking. I wouldn't go as far as to say that the strategy is an illusion though; it does exist.

I would describe fighters as tactical, but not really strategic. Most competitive multiplayer games are real-time tactical including fighters and FPS. RTS games are also really real time tactical. In all three genres tactical ability and reflexes are what lead to victory.

Turn-based strategy games are the same whether it's on a computer or on a real-life board. Chess is chess, whether on a computer or real life. But RTS's are played in REAL TIME. That means that, reflexes do make a difference. At the top levels, everyone knows the good strategies, and no one has a strategy advantage for long. So, because strategy doesn't make that much of a difference, reflexes do. Basically, strategy and micro separates the beginners from the intermediate, but it's the micro that separates the good from the best.

You might want to try out Dawn of War, that game is pretty slow-paced by RTS standards. Although, when it boils right down to it, reflexes make the difference.

I'm not saying that a board game is superior, because it is on a board. I am saying board games have a superior design. Chess is superior to computer only strategy games, because it was originally designed on a board. Whoever designed chess focused purely on the strategy aspect instead of getting caught up in the bells and whistles a computer can provide. Even when it's technically on a computer chess is still a superior design.

I've played both Risk and Axis & Alllies on a computer. In this case the nice thing about the computer is it speeds up die rolling, but the gameplay is identical to the board game version. These are really fun against a person, and they really suck against a computer. On the other hand Civilization games are really fun against a computer, but suck against people. I haven't found a game that is superior in both single and multiplayer. Ultimately you've got to pick which one is your strength. It just so happens that strategy board games are always designed with strategic multiplayer in mind, so they are strongest at strategic multiplayer. That is the best medium to test your strategic ability against other people.

 

[Tamske]

Okay.

I read the title and I thought "Yay, strategic board games!" I'm a big board/card game fan:
strategic: gipf project games, other games by Kris Burm; go, caylus... (for some reason or other I can't get the hang on chess)
I like other board/card games (more-than-two players ones where you need some luck) too: settlers of catan, whist, bridge, ticket to ride, genius,...
And of course pen-and-paper role playing. Our style of role playing has nothing to do with strategy any more, but it is fun.

The posts in this tread seem to indicate computer games. I like civilization IV (with some mods making it bigger and longer) The only drawback seems, if you're playing hotseat, one of the human players gets often ahead well before the Middle Ages... and the other resigns. I've only played one game till the end. It was a super close tie between me winning cultural victory and husband winning the space race! (He won. He has sent a spy blocking the production of my best city for a few turns and that made the difference.)

I don't think board games are superior to computer strategic games. They are older (duh). They have simpler rules (which I like). I don't think there is an objective rule saying which game is better than the other. There is only subjective preference.
All strategic games I like are turn-based. They are either very abstract (not featuring a theme, such as the battle theme of chess) or empire-building. I like the abstract ones because of their complexity combined with really simple rules. I like the empire-building ones because I like building and creating.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't think board games are superior to computer strategic games. They are older (duh). They have simpler rules (which I like). I don't think there is an objective rule saying which game is better than the other. There is only subjective preference.

Yes you are exactly right. Games are a matter of taste, so which one is better overall depends on the individual. However, you can say that one game is superior in a specific aspect over another. For example Halo 3 has superior graphics to Super Mario Bros. on the NES. That is objective because a lot more focus and resources went into developing the graphics of Halo 3. However I actually think Super Mario Bros. is more fun to play. That is based on my own subjective tastes.

So one person might prefer RTS on a computer and someone else might prefer a strategy board game. That is based on taste. However what is objective is the pure strategy aspect of board games is superior when playing against human players. That is what board games focus on, because that is the only thing they really can focus on. Computers can do a lot of other things, so they sacrifice some on strategy so they can put in other aspects that have broad appeal (lots of units, real time action, etc...).

So I'm saying strategy board games are superior when it comes to strategy, but they aren't necessarily superior overall.