4 ms·

When I first started playing Starcraft, I too thought it a trivial game. 12 marines always beat 8, defense is stronger than offense, so mine, expand, defend, a

by Dove 17y ago

When I first started playing Starcraft, I too thought it a trivial game. 12 marines always beat 8, defense is stronger than offense, so mine, expand, defend, and wait. What was I missing, aside from annoying random noise affecting battles? The strategy. It's in the noise. I didn't see it because I didn't know what it was to think strategically. Writes Clausewitz in his classic On War: The conduct of war, then, consists in the planning and conduct of fighting. If fighting consisted of a single act, no further subdivision would be needed. However, it consists of a greater or lesser number of single acts, each complete in itself, which . . . are called 'engagements' and which form new entities. This gives rise to the completely different activity of planning and executing these engagements themselves, and of coordinating each of them with the others in order to further the object of the war. One has been called tactics and the other strategy. . . tactics teaches the use of armed forces in the engagement; strategy, the use of engagements for the object of the war. Anyone can think tactically. I have six zerglings, you have seven; you'll probably win, but perhaps I can cycle them and dance them around to do the most possible damage. Perhaps I can find the perfect spot for a siege tank on a hill, or which turret to use my battlecruiser's main gun on. From such a perspective, the game seems trivial; whoever brings the better forces to the engagement, provided both parties do the right thing, will almost certainly win. The game is in bringing the better forces to the engagement. Deciding when and where to engage, what to control, what to build and to bring. To wait 30 seconds and take your eight marines with twelve of my own, rather than six, and then six a little later -- so I win instead of lose. Or to strike quickly so your forces are tied down and cannot interfere with another objective. Or to strike much later with more advanced forces that take no damage. In any engagement, once both sides see what forces are in play, the outcome is already determined. Some micromanagement and smart tactics can help, but ultimately you must decide on the spot whether to spend the units or retreat. That is not the interesting part. The interesting part is in constructing the engagements to your advantage. To have the better unit matchup, or the advantage of surprise or defense, or to have more power in that particular place at that particular time. The Excel part everybody does, and everybody gets. Factor that out. Assume everyone mines and builds perfectly. That's where the game actually starts: in turning the engagement to your advantage over what you build and where you fight. All the planning and deception and reacting and struggling that goes into that. Initiative. Massing. Marching. Scouting. That's strategy. That's the allure. The appeal of strats? Take 20 minutes and watch some masters play . . . http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/4.xml http://www.starcraft2.com/features/battlereports/4.xml . . . and with luck, it will be obvious.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
but then why tie people down with minutia that only matters to newbies? forcing people to get over the hump of learning to mine perfectly is silly. also: you should try Go if you haven't ever played it.
- Dove 17y ago
  How rudely dismissive! The minutia do not only matter to newbies; they are the elements from which the larger game is built. Knowing how to do basic things correctly is the starting point. From there, you understand what it means to stop your opponent from executing correctly, and how to preserve your own ability. In a good game, rarely is one building perfectly without interference. The game is as complex as it needs to be in order to be the game that it is. I mean, chess might be easier to learn with half the pieces, and would likely demonstrate some of the same principles, but it would not be the same game. Is the complexity justified? Well, I think it's a good game, and though it's taken me years to learn it, I find it rewarding to know. Your mileage may vary; I do not particularly care for chess. Ultimately, whether you find it a "good game" is the only judgement I think is really valid.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  Mining "perfectly" only matters against top-level competition. Otherwise, just pointing a decent number of harvesters toward the resources (SC) or setting workers on auto (Civ) is good enough. So you have it exactly backwards; mining efficiency doesn't matter much to newbies. As for why resource mining / management even exists: from a warfare perspective, because you can only fight as long as you have the tools to fight with. From a gameplay perspective, because acquiring resources provides a major motivation for leaving your secure base, and the cost and risk associated with setting up a secondary base (versus using the same resources for some other objective like attacking an enemy position) provides a major decision point. Learning the tools -- how to harvest, how to build units, how much your units cost, etc. -- is newbie stuff. The real game is in setting yourself up to win the war through the engagements you choose. The real game is in deciding which resources and technologies to pursue, when and where to engage your enemy with which forces, what risks to take at what time, how to respond to failures, what sacrifices to make for the sake of an objective (intelligence, delaying an enemy, destroying or acquiring something, etc.), recognizing the right time to press an advantage, and so on. It is the stuff of warfare, and the stuff of life. Far from an Excel optimization exercise, it's a rich multi-dimensional decision space with several paths to victory based on numerous factors that can vary from game to game. That's why my wife and I still play Starcraft after twelve years.

by Dove 17y ago

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

but then why tie people down with minutia that only matters to newbies? forcing people to get over the hump of learning to mine perfectly is silly. also: you should try Go if you haven't ever played it.

Dove 17y ago
How rudely dismissive! The minutia do not only matter to newbies; they are the elements from which the larger game is built. Knowing how to do basic things correctly is the starting point. From there, you understand what it means to stop your opponent from executing correctly, and how to preserve your own ability. In a good game, rarely is one building perfectly without interference. The game is as complex as it needs to be in order to be the game that it is. I mean, chess might be easier to learn with half the pieces, and would likely demonstrate some of the same principles, but it would not be the same game. Is the complexity justified? Well, I think it's a good game, and though it's taken me years to learn it, I find it rewarding to know. Your mileage may vary; I do not particularly care for chess. Ultimately, whether you find it a "good game" is the only judgement I think is really valid.
lotharbot 17y ago
Mining "perfectly" only matters against top-level competition. Otherwise, just pointing a decent number of harvesters toward the resources (SC) or setting workers on auto (Civ) is good enough. So you have it exactly backwards; mining efficiency doesn't matter much to newbies. As for why resource mining / management even exists: from a warfare perspective, because you can only fight as long as you have the tools to fight with. From a gameplay perspective, because acquiring resources provides a major motivation for leaving your secure base, and the cost and risk associated with setting up a secondary base (versus using the same resources for some other objective like attacking an enemy position) provides a major decision point. Learning the tools -- how to harvest, how to build units, how much your units cost, etc. -- is newbie stuff. The real game is in setting yourself up to win the war through the engagements you choose. The real game is in deciding which resources and technologies to pursue, when and where to engage your enemy with which forces, what risks to take at what time, how to respond to failures, what sacrifices to make for the sake of an objective (intelligence, delaying an enemy, destroying or acquiring something, etc.), recognizing the right time to press an advantage, and so on. It is the stuff of warfare, and the stuff of life. Far from an Excel optimization exercise, it's a rich multi-dimensional decision space with several paths to victory based on numerous factors that can vary from game to game. That's why my wife and I still play Starcraft after twelve years.