Beginner to strategy... where to look?

[mirrorshades]

I've taken an interest in strategy games recently, but I'm finding that I don't have much of an instinct for exactly *how* to come up with the strategy for a given scenario. I know it's a pretty vague question, but does anyone have any good intro-type links about strategy gaming in general that they could share?

In particular, I have been tinkering with a couple of the older Koei games (Nobunaga's Ambition and Romance of the Three Kingdoms) and have also been doing a little with Battle for Wesnoth. Overall experience is the same, though; I set the difficulty level on the absolute easiest, move soldiers/units/whatever around the map randomly, then get the crap crushed out of me within the first few turns and end up starting a new game.

Either I'm that much of an idiot, or I'm missing some of the basics of strategy gaming that I can't find written down anywhere. Any advice anyone could offer would be appreciated (also any other games that people find enjoyable, though I do prefer turn based... I figure if I can't even come close to succeeding at turn-based, then real time isn't even worth considering).

 

[galsiah]

I've taken an interest in strategy games recently, but I'm finding that I don't have much of an instinct for exactly *how* to come up with the strategy for a given scenario. I know it's a pretty vague question, but does anyone have any good intro-type links about strategy gaming in general that they could share?

You could always try chess. There's huge amounts of info on it, from basic, to expert level, and individual games can be played quite quickly - so you can identify mistakes and learn from them. There's probably some free programs you can get to play against / point out strategies etc.
I guess you could find some info more tailored to computer strategy games, but nothing too specific will apply very generally. All the basic elements are in chess - prediction, planning, seeing things from both sides, tactics, strategy....

In particular, I have been tinkering with a couple of the older Koei games (Nobunaga's Ambition and Romance of the Three Kingdoms) and have also been doing a little with Battle for Wesnoth.

I don't know the others, but Battle for Wesnoth is pretty hard. Bear in mind it's free (so doesn't need to make things easy for mass market appeal), and made by strategy enthusiasts. "Easy" probably doesn't mean easy.

...or I'm missing some of the basics of strategy gaming that I can't find written down anywhere.

Perhaps you are. Again, I'd suggest chess if you want to learn general tactical/strategic thinking. Most computer strategy game advice is going to be heavily biased towards certain conventions - which won't always apply (e.g. resources, tech trees, upgrade paths, fog of war...).
Having said that, chess is a game of perfect knowledge (you can see your opponent's moves), and is deterministic (no randomness). Most strategy games include limited knowledge (e.g. fog of war), and have some random elements. You clearly need to take these aspects into account.

I figure if I can't even come close to succeeding at turn-based, then real time isn't even worth considering.

I think you're getting that the wrong way around if your problem is strategic thinking. Most turn based games are one hell of a lot more strategic than most Real-Time-"Strategy" games. In an RTS you can usually learn a few basic tactics, and play pretty well by following them most of the time (though an expert will beat you, of course). In a TBS it's much harder to do well just by repeating such basic tactics - you really have to think about things all the way through. [perhaps this isn't necessarily always true, but it tends to be]
I prefer TBS, but because they require a whole lot more thinking. Most RTSs are much more about reflex (both physical and mental) than about complex strategy - the strategy that is involved tends to be much simpler. If you're going to use one as a warm-up for the other, go for RTS first, then TBS. [an RTS also tends to be over more quickly (particularly if you really suck), so you can learn faster]

EDIT - to this end, why not let the Codex school you in StarCraft (one thread down)?
It ought to be dirt cheap from somewhere, presuming you don't have it already.

 

[onerobot]

Either I'm that much of an idiot, or I'm missing some of the basics of strategy gaming that I can't find written down anywhere. Any advice anyone could offer would be appreciated (also any other games that people find enjoyable, though I do prefer turn based... I figure if I can't even come close to succeeding at turn-based, then real time isn't even worth considering).

As Galsiah mentioned Chess is definitely useful, although ultimately that game is pretty far removed from most computer strategy games as it places a huge importance on planning moves ahead of time and taking into account as many moves and possibilities as possible. Things are generally a lot more nebulous in PC games because of the addition of limited information and luck, which makes them more about the combination of picking the single tactic most likely to succeed and seeking as many small exploits as possible in order to get an edge over an opponent.

I haven't played any Koei games, but Wesnoth I can help with. The most important things to do are utilizing terrain in all cases (meaning the defense bonuses of individual hexes along with chokepoints), taking the next enemy move into consideration (mousing over a unit reveals its movement range), keeping your units in a reasonable formation when attacking in order to limit your enemies moves along with using different tactics based on what kind of enemy you're up against. For example against large armies using feinting and divide and conquer tactics is paramount, and if they're a level superior weakening them with cannon fodder is a good idea as they can usually even kill your best characters in a single round of combat. Against smaller or lower level forces smaller groups of carefully placed, more experienced units backed by healers and using unit counters is generally the way to go. Economics also plays a role, although small as it basically boils down to the initial land (well, town) grab and estimating the correct units to use on a map early on in order to free up your commander for combat and keep upkeep costs under control.

Of course that's just dealing with tactics - there's also the general element of knowledge which deals less with making the right choice than making it at the right time. It also comes up in games like Starcraft where weird things like build queues can play a huge role.

So yeah, basically it comes down to having the patience to learn all of this crap.

 

[mirrorshades]

Thanks for the replies. Some comments:

All the basic elements are in chess - prediction, planning, seeing things from both sides, tactics, strategy....

Ah, I hadn't considered chess... though I recall when I played in grade school I tended to lose pretty quickly. I guess my chess and wargaming skills are about equivalent. Maybe I'll give it a more serious look.

If you're going to use one as a warm-up for the other, go for RTS first, then TBS. [snip] to this end, why not let the Codex school you in StarCraft (one thread down)?

Interesting... so the real time element cuts down on the "strategic" thinking involved in some ways. I hadn't considered that, I sort of figured they would be the same but RTS would just go faster by not making the enemy wait to clobber me.

I will give StarCraft a look, I have heard a lot of good things about it.

So yeah, basically it comes down to having the patience to learn all of this crap.

That's what I figured; that, and practice. Thanks for the tips on Wesnoth, I did also find the "Improved Manual" on the site that has some tips for basic strategy. I think my problem is that I was playing the combat like I would in an RPG -- throw everything at one enemy (unit) to kill it, then move on to another. The idea of making battle lines and having a secondary, scouts, etc... is very different for me.

 

[kingcomrade]

With Starcraft, if you are really bad at RTS games just play through the campaigns to get familiar with the game and units then go online and download some replays and watch what people do and why. A group of Codexers play Starcraft pretty regularly and we'd be happy to have another player.

 

[LCJr.]

I've taken an interest in strategy games recently, but I'm finding that I don't have much of an instinct for exactly *how* to come up with the strategy for a given scenario. I know it's a pretty vague question, but does anyone have any good intro-type links about strategy gaming in general that they could share?

In particular, I have been tinkering with a couple of the older Koei games (Nobunaga's Ambition and Romance of the Three Kingdoms) and have also been doing a little with Battle for Wesnoth. Overall experience is the same, though; I set the difficulty level on the absolute easiest, move soldiers/units/whatever around the map randomly, then get the crap crushed out of me within the first few turns and end up starting a new game.

Either I'm that much of an idiot, or I'm missing some of the basics of strategy gaming that I can't find written down anywhere. Any advice anyone could offer would be appreciated (also any other games that people find enjoyable, though I do prefer turn based... I figure if I can't even come close to succeeding at turn-based, then real time isn't even worth considering).

For the early KOEI the best thing to do is lurk on the sidelines like a vulture. Build up your territories and army but don't be in any hurry to strike. Watch the AI wars and look for oppurtunities.

In the first Nobunaga Ambition being the last to attack is usually preferable. Wait for the neighboring AI to wear themselves out and then attack when they're all weakened. The AI generally attacks with a strong enough force to win but not enough to hold a province after they have won. This usually triggers an attack by another rival and another and so on. Once your neighbors have expended their forces move in with enough to take and hold the province. Also in the first one of the first things you should do is reorganize your army. I usually went with 40% general, max rifles allowed, either 1 10% infantry or two 5% and the rest cavalry. In battle try and kill the enemy general ignoring the other units as much as possible. Once you kill the general you get his surviving troops.

From RotK on recruitment of generals becomes important. After you've played for awhile you'll learn the names of the top generals. Again be patient and watch the AI wars while you build up. Whenever a province is conquered look and see if the surviving losing generals are worth recruiting. If their loyalty was high to their former master it will be quite low to their new one so they're usually pretty easy to recruit. Just be sure to build their loyalty up quickly before someone steals them from you.

Geography also plays an important part. Try to conquer provinces that border a minimum of enemy provinces. I'll usually ignore the wealth of a province and focus on ones with only one border or that will seal off some of my other provinces. If you do this it will free up more of your generals for the front. You only really need one general for your "safe" provinces so use your weaker generals to administrate and keep moving the better fighters forward.

 

[Seboss]

You can find some advice about strategy and tactics in Wesnoth here.
TB Strategy games are my current favourite but I ain't that good and I think Wesnoth is the right mix of depth and difficulty for 'rookies'.
The game is not that hard. Keep luring the enemy units on unfavourable terrain and only attack at the right time of the day (you knew each race have bonus/malus depending on the hour of the day right?).
Don't make daring moves if you don't have your back against the wall or if you don't have a really good opportunity. Sending a 30GP unit in the middle of 5 zombies without a proper strategy is never a good idea.

Use the Zone of Control. You can block a dozen enemies from advancing with 3 or 4 cleverly placed units (don't use level 0 units for that, they don't have any ZoC ). On the opposite, don't underestimate 'Skirmisher' units (they ignore enemy's ZoC). They tend to be cheap and can be a big thorn in enemy's butt. Very useful to grab villages.

Heal your units, retreat when they are wounded, use the villages. You can't afford to lose experienced units. Study the enemy units description carefully and find out which unit is best against them (for zombies use fire, skeletons use blunt, other undeads use holy etc...).

The best way to learn the game is too play 1v1 with a friend so that you can fight with fair odds, share your findings etc.

Anyway, keep trying. You'll soon get the hang of it and you'll see soon enough that the AI is pretty predictable and can be defeated easily, except with extremely unfair odds (some campaign missions are really painful).

 

[Ivy Mike]

I don't think there's one good answer besides what has already been hinted at. The only way to get better at strategy games (in general) is by playing them. There are two reasons for this: One is that trial and error makes for excellent learning, even though you might not "see" what your errors are in the begining. The other is that the more you know about a subject (i e strategy gaming) the better you get at learning about it - that is, the larger your previous knowledge is the easier you learn new things about the same subject. This might not be the answer you wanted, but it holds true for the vast majority.

If you're going to apply what I just said there are three options, among several others, you could choose from. The first is to start by playing some "easier" games to get your strategic mind going. The other is by actually going about playing the games you have like you would study for an exam. This might be overstating it, but writing down what went good/wrong isn't a bad idea. The third is to read after action reports (AARs) on the games you are interested in. I did this for Close Combat 3 and it worked for me.

 

[Slylandro]

I second the recommendation of chess. The principles generalize relatively well to other strategy games and there's a large body of literature devoted to it.

I'd recommend Winning Chess Strategy by Seirawan to start out.

I have a feeling though that this isn't really what you're looking for, and that you're looking for ways to improve general and not domain specific strategic thinking. There isn't a whole lot of writing on that, but good places to look at would be old military textbooks (The Art of War is a famous one, but there are other good ones too.)

You might try to also to reflect more after playing a game. After winning or losing, don't just immediately give it another try. Look back over your game and try to find out why you won or loss. Try playing with different styles. A lot of players hem themselves in mentally by buying into a specific frame of thought (this is especially the case with conservative players who do nothing but turtle) and never learn situational strategy as a result. If you're a risk taker usually, try playing a bit more conservatively during different parts of the game. If you're conservative, try being a bit more audacious. Remember that the best players often break the 'rules' when it fits them.

In every 'strategy' game, there are usually elements which constrain the range of intelligent plans. Learn what they are. As an example, a rough sketch of the elements in chess would be: control of the center, pawn structure, space, piece activity, tempo, open files, king protection, and bishop vs knight differences. Without knowing the elements you can't evaluate your strengths and weaknesses. A beginner who doesn't know anything about IQP theory is not going to survive very long in a Queen's Gambit Accepted against a good player, and when the beginner loses, he's not going to understand why. Having a reasonably structured grasp of the elements in a strategy game is crucial.

Some more practical advice would be to just learn "stock" plans and build from there. In Starcraft, learn about all the common plans like the zergling rush, the reaver drop, and so on. And just mimic them, and wait until you do a decent job before being more creative. This is the easiest way of getting better, although it is easy to fall by the wayside and just get stuck in the same frame of thought over and over.

 

[LCJr.]

Overall experience is the same, though; I set the difficulty level on the absolute easiest, move soldiers/units/whatever around the map randomly, then get the crap crushed out of me within the first few turns and end up starting a new game.

OK some general advice.

You shouldn't be moving around randomly. Always have a goal. Once you set a goal try to come up with a plan to achieve it.

Why were your units being defeated? Did you not have enough? Were they too spread out? Not trained or equipped enough? Did you go on the offensive when you should have been on the defensive? Were fighting in the wrong terrain? Most importantly what did you learn from it? What did you and the enemy do that was worked or failed?

This is just my own personal gaming philosophy. When I start learning a new game or playing against more experienced people I play to lose. Not that I won't make an effort but I go in expecting to be defeated. Instead of worrying about winning I focus on learniing from my opponent. When they pull some great strategy I try to remember it so I can copy it, expand on it and think of ways to counter it.

 

[mirrorshades]

Wow, thanks for the continued replies and advice guys. I'm consolidating my replies to one post, since I think it's less annoying in a non-threaded view. (Hm, unless there is an option to have a threaded view on the site somewhere....)

A group of Codexers play Starcraft pretty regularly and we'd be happy to have another player.

Ok, I found myself a copy of Starcraft and will give it a look. Since I assume that the codex doesn't intend to teach me the baby steps (where to click on the screen and what everything means), I will take your advice and play through the single player mode for a bit. I saw in the starcraft thread that the games are organized in IRC, is that still the place to go?

[In the old Koei games] geography also plays an important part. Try to conquer provinces that border a minimum of enemy provinces. I'll usually ignore the wealth of a province and focus on ones with only one border or that will seal off some of my other provinces. If you do this it will free up more of your generals for the front.

Nice tips. I recall playing Nobunaga's Ambition on my friend's Nintendo for what seemed like hours on end... and I think we basically both did that. I'm pretty sure we also said there were 8 people playing, and just divvied up the 8 fiefs between us. Abusing the game mechanics, maybe, but it seemed to give us an edge. What I've noticed is that if you can make it through the first few rounds, it's easier to maintain a presence and not get beat down quite as hard.

TB Strategy games are my current favourite but I ain't that good and I think Wesnoth is the right mix of depth and difficulty for 'rookies'. The game is not that hard.

[snip]

The best way to learn the game is too play 1v1 with a friend so that you can fight with fair odds, share your findings etc.

Anyway, keep trying. You'll soon get the hang of it

I did find the strategy guide you linked to, it's copied in the Improved Manual. That's the kind of stuff I was looking for; I am getting the sense that looking for broad, general strategy tips is almost useless for computer gaming since each game has its own particular mechanics. (I guess if I wanted to be a military analyst on a network news show, the generic information would come in more handy.)

I also see where patience and practice work out; I'm still used to the paradigm of adventure/RPG games where I can reason my way through the game in one shot (in theory, anyway); this whole idea of learning by failing is a new one. I'm sure there are sites out there that give case studies of military battles, so I could learn from other peoples' failures as well.

Re: playing against a friend, that would be great except that I have none to speak of. Married with 2 kids under age 3... so the social life is a bit... dry... to say the least.

If you're going to apply what I just said there are three options, among several others, you could choose from. The first is to start by playing some "easier" games to get your strategic mind going. The other is by actually going about playing the games you have like you would study for an exam. This might be overstating it, but writing down what went good/wrong isn't a bad idea. The third is to read after action reports (AARs) on the games you are interested in. I did this for Close Combat 3 and it worked for me.

I've been looking through MobyGames for some other ideas. In particular, I've grabbed some of the old "classics" from various abandonware sites and am feeling my way around.

I'm not familiar with the notion of an AAR -- and googling a TLA can be a bit spotty. Do you mind linking to an example or two?

I second the recommendation of chess. The principles generalize relatively well to other strategy games and there's a large body of literature devoted to it.

I have a feeling though that this isn't really what you're looking for, and that you're looking for ways to improve general and not domain specific strategic thinking. There isn't a whole lot of writing on that, but good places to look at would be old military textbooks (The Art of War is a famous one, but there are other good ones too.)

Lots of good advice in your post. I have printed off a translation of Art of War, and it seems like a lot of common sense. Good to have it all written down in one place, I guess. Am also following up on chess; I always thought that chess strategy was about memorizing opening moves and then iterating through 6 or 7 possible future moves once the opening stage is set. What I have read so far, though, seems to indicate that it's more about pattern recognition and adaptation and less about memorization and if-then scenarios -- so maybe there's hope for me after all (I was never good at memorization).

You shouldn't be moving around randomly. Always have a goal. Once you set a goal try to come up with a plan to achieve it.

Why were your units being defeated? Did you not have enough? Were they too spread out? Not trained or equipped enough? Did you go on the offensive when you should have been on the defensive? Were fighting in the wrong terrain? Most importantly what did you learn from it? What did you and the enemy do that was worked or failed?

I think I just never had any form of organized plan -- I just kind of throw my units at enemies until I kill one, or enough of mine get killed that I end up having to retreat. Trying to develop a strategy of my own seems complex; I think I make half my moves in some sort of vague offensive manner, and half reacting to whatever the enemy does... so I have units bouncing back and forth all over the place.

"This turn, unit A will move towards the village." (turn ends)

"Ah, now this turn, I need unit A to move towards unit B who is getting clobbered." (turn ends)

"Hm, unit B just got killed. Now I can move unit A back towards the village." (turn ends)

"Oops, the village got taken. I guess I'll move unit A towards the enemy general, since I'm supposed to kill him." (turn ends)

"Wow, the armies of darkness have marched all over my territory, and I never really even got started with anything." (game ends)

Well, you get the idea. This is why I was thinking turn-based might be a bit better, since I can stop and think before I move. (Not unlike the old Infocom games that only "tick" when you enter a command.)


If anyone is still reading this soliloquy, my hat's off to you. I appreciate all the advice; I'll see how it goes. Feel free to beat the snot out of me in Starcraft, as long as you tell me why you did what you did.

 

[Ivy Mike]

I'm not familiar with the notion of an AAR -- and googling a TLA can be a bit spotty. Do you mind linking to an example or two?

An AAR is basically a story that tells you how a scenario went, who did what and when. There's no strict formula for how the story is written, so you might get more or less factual stories depending on who wrote them. It's a good source for information on specific tactics for specific games.
Check this forum out for some AARs on one of my favourite strategy games, Dominions 3. For Close Combat AARs you should go here.
The Armchair General has a series called Tactics 101 going right now that you should check out. Their forums have some AARs too if you don't mind searching around for a bit.

 

[mirrorshades]

Cool, I'll check them out. That Armchair General site looks like there's a lot of good info, the "Tactics 101" series looks like something along the lines of what I was looking for.

 

[Veracity]

One thing people seem to be skirting round to an extent (possibly trying to do you a favour, since it can be a bit off-putting) is that success in single-player strategy is often most easily achieved by recognizing and relentlessly exploiting weaknesses in the AI opponent design, since they'll never correct their errors as a human opponent eventually should. Ideally, you might prefer to beat AI opponents 'fairly', but single-player scenarios often stack the odds against the player to compensate for this lack of adaptability, so some degree of rote exploitation becomes all but necessary.

If you're trying to shift from thinking in terms of adventure/RPG to strategy/tactics mechanics, it might be helpful to pick up some of the strategy titles that rely heavily on the use of intentionally overpowered hero units. Starcraft just barely qualifies, as far as I recall, though only a couple of its unique units are really outrageous. Heroes of Might and Magic is probably the best known of the sub-genre, but I haven't played any of those (could be inaccurate, but the impression I've formed of them is that they're too focused on hero units for my liking). The Age of Wonders games are very good, if you can tolerate the elf boobs setting: their exploration and character development elements are detailed and flexible enough that you can abuse them for an edge, but you still need to play the strategic and tactical maps sensibly in order to get anywhere with them.

About Romance of the Three Kingdoms (can't be very specific without knowing which one, but they all have many design elements in common, as far as I know), one problem you might be encountering is that it's not remotely balanced for all possible scenarios (nor is it supposed to be). If you want to win, just be Cao Cao, spend a few years building up a base for expansion and frantically recruiting all the top-tier generals who are hard-wired to be loyal to you, then go for crazily rapid unification by any means, invariably force. This is what's 'supposed to' happen, so it's quite easy; conversely, if you're controlling some of the minor factions, simple survival can be counted a major achievement.

 

[mytgroo]

Most RPGs are about small unit tactics with a small band of warriors. This also applies at the general level of most strategy games. There are two things worth learning about basic tactics of guerrilla warfare-- hit and run, and basic tactics of small units in combat. On the individual level, have some idea of the basics of how to use sword or gun in a simplistic way will put you light years ahead of most game designers. After the small unit, you end up with groups of units working together on a battlefield. This is about as complex as it gets.