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.

Why Is Strategy Fun?

Why are strategy games fun, and why do we care?  This is the first question that needs to be addressed before any attempt to build a better RTS game is undertaken.  Games like Half-Life were built from the ground up based on questions like this, specifically by trying to create an immersive novel, and with every facet of the game bent towards its ultimate purpose, the result is highly polished.  Whether it’s a success or not is subjective, but I say that Half-Life, and its successors are the Canterbury Tales in the history of single-player video games, and demonstrated what it is that the medium can and should become.  Strategy games are more complex than creating a single linear story because a single game actually embodies a single instance of a solution space that can be immensely large, and using a wide variety of starting parameters such as player skills, preferences, etc.  So if we are to plan what strategy games should become, first we need to figure out their basic elements, and the proper tools and methods used to construct such a game.  Let’s begin by figuring out what has made past strategy games successful.

Units (part I)

Traditionally, RTS units are non de-constructible. What I mean is that the actual units themselves, in almost all RTS games I’ve played, live a short ’0 / 1′ alive/dead existence, with a certain amount of damage points (shown as health-bars) to represent damage in a fairly abstract way. Most RTS games display diminishing health/damage of a given unit with some kind of cute preset animation. For example, in Total Annihilation the units billow an ever greater amount of smoke. Upon actual death they possess a variety of explosion animations to represent their demise, such as breaking apart or full blown explosions with flying debris!

In Supreme Commander we see pretty much the same system but with fancier deaths or damage animations. The experimental units in particular go out with a real bang. I’m going to propose a more modern and importantly, more fun system in terms of actual gameplay mechanics. It is also, I think, a more realistic way of doing things and fits in with my RTS concept.

A Single-Resource Model?

Those of you brave enough to browse my scrappy notes may have noticed that I was brainstorming a resource system for my futuristic RTS concept. I am still adamant that the more logical option, despite being a HUGE fan of T.A and Supreme Commander, is the single, not dual (energy/metal) resource system. The main reason for this is that it fits in with my ideas for linking the expansion of ones empire very directly to resource income in order to promote (but not insist upon) continuing growth.

This single resource which could be regarded as ‘energy’ or ‘finances’ etc, then links into two main areas of the game; research and production. Research is centered around the classical turn-based Space Empires-esq ‘tech tree’ system. Production is of course, anything to do with the actual building, maintenance, repair or reclamation of items within ones empire.

As much as I love T.A, I want to get away from its reliance on good eco-management skills and make RTS even more action packed and strategy/movement centered. The building of energy-metal converters and so on is a fine concept but it does detract slightly from the core notion of warfare and expansion of empire.