Gamereplays Article: The History of Real Time Strategy

Not new-news as such, but I wanted to point readers and RTS nerds to this fantastic article by a fellow going by the pseudonym ‘Phantom’, over at gamereplays.org. However, it’s also an open document, that is, it is open to editing and contributions by anyone interested in RTS. It’s an ongoing project to document the history of the genre. So go check it out!

A snippet from the introduction:

How to Design a Strategy – Part 1: Slice & Dice

It is about time this blog got down to brass tacks about strategy, This post is the first in what is probably going to be a lengthy series on what fundamental principles and thought processes are behind the development of a strategy, in any context honestly, however I will focus specifically on RTS games as an illustrative example.  If you want to learn how to go from complete ignorance about any particular game into being able to formulate effective strategies to win at that game, read on.

RTS User Interface Tools

Many moons ago, I blogged about how RTS game designers should be learning from user interface design by searching far outside the narrow box of traditional games. For example, back when I blogged about this, many advanced shaping, drawing, formation, layout and grouping tools had been widely available for years for industrial use in popular apps like Photoshop. The first decent implementation of this sort of UI approach came about two or three years later, when I had all but stopped RTS blogging.

Chris Taylor came out with Supreme Commander, and with it had forged the now iconic strategic zoom. A feature that had been used for years (albeit much more crudely) in graphics and design applications, et al. It changed everything for RTS — we now had space, vision, a sense of awesome scale.

Types of Balance

Balance is a complex subject for any game, and it is especially so in strategy games where the space of possible strategies is (typically) so large.  However it is critical for any symmetric, competitive strategy game that the tools available are perfectly equal in utility.  Still, balance is perhaps the most discussed, and the most badly mangled, discussion topic for any strategy game.  I think we need to raise the quality of all balance discussions.  In this post I am going to attempt to separate the different principles of balance, which are sadly used interchangeably in most discussions of game “balance” to the detriment of the discussion.

Warning:  Wall of text inbound.  Brace yerselves ‘gainst the mast o’ yer ship, me hearties!

Asymmetric Warfare

Modern strategy games are, at their core, quite simple games.  I consider Starcraft and a variety of other games as fundamentally derived from the game of chess.  You start the game with the same types of basic pieces, you make more pieces (added to the chess formula), and you move those pieces around the board.  The ultimate objective is to checkmate your opponent by making them unable to move.  However in a game where you can make more pieces the main way to do this is to eliminate your opponent’s ability to make additional pieces.

There are some philosophical underpinnings to this model that most players have seldom considered as maxims of game design.  For example, the idea of “game balance” is hotly discussed for any mainstream game on every corner of the internet.  While the discussions range from thought-provoking to positively inane, everyone seems to agree that the game must be “balanced.”  This is the main principle behind symmetric games.  However many players don’t seem to realize there is any other way you might make a game at all.  Asymmetric games are rife with possibilities, almost certainly more possibilities than the entire space of symmetric wargames, begging to be explored.