Without telling you which game he made, do you agree with him? Skip over highlighted.
I think if you give a unit too many orders it should stop and tell you to fuck off and refuse to move.
I don't want a warfare simulator anyway.
the appeal of strategy games are so much greater than mere simulation
>>849817Thanks I was looking for something like this. Now whenever I see somebody post the usual reddit take that "esports" ruined RTS and made them clickfests I can use this to show it was always like that.
>>849817dawn of war?
>>849817As someone who comes from hex and counter wargaming, yes.What I don't agree with is his notion that games don't make use of it. SC(2) doesn't no, but then that isn't a game about morale, wouldn't even make sense within the setting (hivemind sectoids, all powerful ayy lamos, and humans driven to the limit aren't prime candidates for morale simulation).Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, EU2>, Total War, Mount and blade, HoMM, dominions, AoW, steel panthers, XCOM, Graviteam.
>>849817I partially agree but mostly don't. In most historical settings, morale did have a significant impact on the effectiveness or armies so if the developers want to make it accurate it makes sense to include it. In more recent conflicts, troops are generally well trained or fanatical enough that battlefield morale is not going to make a massive difference. In sci-fi or fantasy settings it can be a bit variable how relevant it is. Humans might, depending on their level of training and fanaticism but robots or the undead should generally never have an issue with being sent off to die.Having all battles decided by morale is also considerably less satisfying than wiping the enemy army off the planet so from a fun perspective, a "realistic" morale system sucks.
>>849817>2001Oh, shit, old as fuck going on in here. On general principle I agree, though not to the point of discounting other subtypes of strategy. His tastes are likely very similar to my own, and going by the time frame, I'd hazard a guess that this is an old Total War dev.
>>849817>Starcraft is a strategy, but not a simulatorOnly schizos would disagree.
>>849879>What I don't agree with is his notion that games don't make use of it. SC(2) doesn't no, but then that isn't a game about morale, wouldn't even make sense within the setting (hivemind sectoids, all powerful ayy lamos, and humans driven to the limit aren't prime candidates for morale simulation).Didn't catch that it was 2001, nearly all the games I mention are post 2001.
>>849817>Without telling you which game he madeHe didn't make shit. He is a larper writing paragraphs about his dream games, just like our local apmlets.https://www.google.com/search?q=site:gamedev.net+%22Dauntless%22
>>849896You found his account, but couldn't find the game he worked on?
>>849817>they aren't good warfare simulators at allI started reading at the highlighted and also stopped reading there.
>>849904You think Starcraft is a good simulation of real warfare?
>>849879Terrans so are shown to be panicking and losing their nerve all the time in the cutscenes.
>>849911cutscenes are shit and unrepresentative of the game. Lings in the cutscenes are murderous monsters that overrun everything and can take a beating (single lings shown to be killing several marines). In game half of the lings die in every attack before even reaching the enemy lines, and you can rarely if ever just run at an enemy position head on with lings.
>>849909i think that guy was pointing out that people looking for warfare simulations shouldn't be in conversations about strategy games
>>849978Why the hell not?
Sounds like Nobunaga Ambition Taishi
>>849984A completely different niche.
Fact is people who play strategy games fall into one of two classes.Class triple digit IQ is comprised of reasonably well educated and intelligent gamers, who acknowledges the importance of morale. They prefer historical sims, or games that incorporate mechanics aimed at simulating plausible situations.Class double digit IQ consists of crack babies, drooling morons and fuckwits, who ignore morale entirely, along with practically everything else of any importance. They like games like Star Craft and anything where lots of APM is important to winning. In one study conducted by the Rudolf Steiner Institute of Strategic Studies it was estimated that if the players of all APM based games were removed from existence the average IQ of the world would increase by 16%, obesity would decline 12%, school shootings would decrease 18% and the global quality of life index would rise by 21%
>>850008As a gullible apmlet craving for validation I believe this.
>>849817>calls himself a grognard>wasn't even 10 when Brood War released
>>850033The post is from 2001, anon...
>>850033Did you read the date of the post?
>>850044>>850046>calls himself a grognard>wasn't even 10 when Custer's Revenge released
>>850008APMbros.... is it over?
>>849817Found his account, his username is Dauntless but I don't recognize it. What did he make?
>>849909Starcraft (1) is an incredible simulation of warfare in the sense that positioning and maneuver trumps all. An inferior force can absolutely decimate a far superior force owing to player control. It is true to life and very difficult to simulate in games.
>>850008This but unironically.Death to APMtrannies.
>>850077>Starcraft... positioning and maneuver trumps all The existence of blobbing disproves that notion. If you were talking about Total War, then you might have a point.
>>850077>An inferior force can absolutely decimate a far superior force owing to player controlThe funny thing is this could totally happen in RL if you're defending from the top of the walls but in strategy games turtling is the way to lose the game.
>>850145>defending from the top of the wallsA tactical situation.>turtlingA strategical situation. A RL analogy would be a besieged fortress.
>>849911Those ones are typically civilians. Marines and basically every other unit is completely drugged up/ implanted with things that make the make them hyper aggressive and inhibit fear. Also most of them are convicted murderers and shit
>>850008APM could be roughly translated into quick thinking and decision-making.Even chess has a timer.
>>850229Speed chess is NOT strategy, it is simply sweaty wank-fest for cheese-smelling europoids
>>850229This is actually a good point especially if you think about it longer than 1 minute. But the difference is that while your ability to click would make a big difference in internet bullet chess, when you get into the blitz range, it's more about fast thinking and game knowledge rather than fast clicking. People that don't like APM would probably just prefer it if there was sligtly less pressure to preform really fast. Let's say that the whole match in an hypothetical RTS would have the pacing of the first 2 minutes or so of SC2. Sure, fast decisions and gookclicking still give you a lot of benefit, but it's nowhere near at the same level as the mid-late game in SC2. If you're not baiting with the "lmao git gud nub" arguments, wouldn't you see a world where a large portion of players might just like that better? Even if they ended up sucking at it?
RTS games don't have to ape real-life warfare whatsoever.Some of them do take certain aspects of it as gameplay elements, some go deeper into it than others, but I will never agree with the autists that judge how good the game is by how realistic of a simulation it is.Chess isn't a great game because its "bishop" piece is a true-to-life simulation of catholic prelates' battlefield behavior. Chess is a great game because its ruleset gives rise to a great amount of variety, emerging properties that allow players to consider higher-order concepts than "knight takes pawn but it's defended by the queen so it can't actually", and limitless potential for learning and improving.So, similar to how we judge chess to be good on its "game" merits first, we should judge every competitive game based on its "game" merits first. Realism is not a universally good thing for a game, and shouldn't be treated as such.
>>849817I can see the appeal of hardcore simulationist games, but it's an extremely niche market that doesn't appeal to 99% of strategy gamers. It's cool that people are still making them (or trying to make them anyway), but realism for realism's sake is just not an interesting design goal for a video game. For example, your troops running away when morale breaks is certainly more realistic than everyone always fighting to the death, but it's also extremely frustrating and anti-fun from a gameplay perspective. The more you take control away from the player, the less the player will be engaged with the game and the more unfair the game will feel. You can try to find a middle road where morale is just another gameable system (see Total War games for example), but that's hardly realistic and seems to me like the worst of both worlds.
>>850243>>850270Retardation so deep and on so many levels. Its almost impressive.
>>850242>>850232I meant th regular chess. Granted, I don't know much about how it's played but I do know that there is a clock. And having seen several champions play, the game does move fast.Of course, it's not the same as gookclick in rts but the idea is roughly the same. If we look at rts championships like aoe or starcraft, we see that there are plenty of situations where a fast decision gives a big advantage to the player, the ability to click faster, to be able to "automatically" do certain aspects of the game, like basebuilding ot basic tactics, allow the player to redirect more "processing power" to the more creative aspects of the match.
>>850301>they're posting things that make me upset but I have no argument so I'll just sit here and shit myself in impotent rageOkay.
>>850307There's a lot of parallels for sure. In fact so many parallels that I'm not 100% certain which one you're referring to.But yes, you do things faster when you learn the game. Whether it's the strategy aspect or just pure muscle memory. Compared to other types of strategy games, RTS has more emphasis on the muscle memory part, but that's not the entire game. The better you get at doing the simple stuff effectively, the more you're able to do complex things around the "thinking man" and creative aspects of the game.
>>850101>sc1>blobbing Does not compute.
DUDE THE CIVIL WAR HAPPENED SO STARCRAFT IS SHIT
>>850474This is why sc2 is terrible, everyone blobbing with their single hotkey 200 food armies. Only terran players require a pulse, toss and zerg are braindead. Besides that, zerg is broken unplayable as you can not scout unless lucky.
>>850008Inferiority Complex: The post. Probably a tranny who thinks challenging RTS games are wrong because it's ableist to expect the players to not be blobbing lardmasses that never got picked for sports teams in school and have grown to resent any physical aspect due to proxy of being disgusted with their own body.
>>850635Deathballs are the game's biggest problem but the reason for it is that the unit pack so tightly, not that you can select them all at once.
>>849955No shit? That isn’t the point. The point is Terran are represented that way in the setting. Full stop. The point you drooling retard is they should be that way in the game.Even zerglings are shown to run away
>>850197>hasn’t played Starcraftmarines panic all the time this isn’t the 40k. They are regular humans that’s why they die so easy.
>>850769That is the point, you saying it isn't just because you waltzed in here arguing a bunch of irrelevant shit like some schizo doesnt change that. Take your meds, have sex.
>>850770Outside of the intro brood war cutscene, when?
>>849817How is this any better than a reddit post
>big chungus IQ letting cutscenes take precedence over gameplay when it comes to dictating lore.Ngl, ngmi
>>849817He's right in that a warsim would need morale simulation. It's just that most people don't want warsims because they're not autistic. The autists are free to go play campaign for north africa and deal with the pasta waster ration simulations to their hearts content.
>>850917Fun fact: the italians didnt bring extra water for pasta, the devs of the game simply went out of their way to make the least playable game possible (as in unironically not intended to be played, none of the devs have ever even come close to completing a turn, let alone a full game)For the moral fags, there is a dude doing squad leader here (assuming that thread hasnt slud yet), which seems to rely very heavily on morale, good combat order and leaders.
This thread would be so much better if everyone followed my instruction and didn't read the highlighted sentence.
>>850994Block it out properly the next time then instead of literally highlighting it.
>>849817>until '63bruh, the Union had consistent and strategic victories constantly in the western theater what game did this homo make
PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOMYES I KNOW I AM SHOUTING THAT THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM AND THAT I AM POINTING DIRECTLY TOWARDS IT. YES, I DID IN FACT PAINT THE ELEPHANT RED.BUT I BELIEVE WE CAN STILL HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THINGS OTHER THAN THIS ELEPHANT THAT IS STANDING HERE IN THIS ROOM WITH US AT THIS TIME
>>849817No, he's retarded. Unless you're playing some shit like Total War where you're using peasants as a fighting force, your troops are trained and disciplined.