Saturday 21 September 2024

Game Design #108: RTS Wisdom (Balance not Boredom, "UI" Rules/Mechanics)

While I enjoyed old skool titles like CoH, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander - I rarely play RTS anymore. Most RTS, the first 1/3 of the game is building up forces, 1/3 is actually fun, fighting, and the last 1/3 is mopping up when once side has obviously won. As a busy dad, a game that's only fun 1/3 of the time isn't really optimal use of my gaming time. My main strategy game is Steel Division (which is more about semi-realistic tactics and eschews base building) and the Total War series (Shogun II = best, fight me).

But as a dad it is my duty to educate my son (9) in gaming genres. So I chose Zero-K - a (free) mash-up of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. My initial impressions is it's a pretty well thought out game - kinda the opposite of the latest Ubi or EA shovelware. Check it out on Steam.

But as I browsed about the game, I came across a few expressions the devs use which caught my imagination. Obviously this won't apply to every genre (especially historical - it's about a sci fi RTS after all!), but their dev blogs have some interesting applications for tabletop gaming.

 

#1. "Buff Strengths, Nerf Weaknesses"

Units need to be balanced, but they don't need to be identical to each other.  That's boring. So rather than nerf good stats until every unit is a carbon copy, they lean into the differences even more.

So if a unit is too strong, instead of nerfing it's strength (say high burst damage) they first look at weaknesses (perhaps it is low defence - can the 'weakness' be made even weaker to even more emphasize the unit's nature as a glasscannon). The unit has been nerfed, but it is even more different than its peers.

Traditional nerfing strength and buffing weaknesses (in areas such as mobility, attack and defence) tends to move units towards a single bland entity. Buffing strengths and nerfing weaknesses instead stretches and emphasizes the differences in those areas. (And, I suspect, may encourage unit variety through more distinct 'counters.')

But what is strength and what is weakness? It's relative. A tank might be fast compared to infantry, but wouldn't we be comparing it to other tanks or units of similar role?

For example in my "Delta Mars" rules I create a baseline human soldier and weapon (rifle) as "average" so I can work around that. A squad machine gunner might be slower, and only fire when stationary but have 3x the firepower dice. It may be then worth 2 normal soldiers.

Another interesting point made was the difference in roles between designer and balancer. The designer looks at the big picture, how units should 'feel' and interact - what tactics should they use? A balancer is about  finer detail - manipulating numbers to make units behave the way they ought.

An interesting distinction when most wargame designers wear both hats.

Finally, sometimes balance fails. Sometimes the core design of a unit is flawed.  The unit needs to be completely reworked and redesigned, not 'balanced.'

 

#2. Fight Your Opponent not the UI (or Rules!)

This seemed timely given my musings on rules like Killwager - in the case of Zero-K they are talking about things like the on-screen information, the game controls, how you interact with the units. The Zero-K controls were the first thing I noticed; simply selecting a clump of units, then dragging your mouse allowed you to "draw" formation - my son and I both said "cool" as we noticed it; so much simple than the usual dozen or so clicks to select and rearrange individual units.

In wargames, it is the physical interface which includes not just the rulebook - unit basing, measuring, dice, terrain etc - even the models themselves. Does anyone remember the old metal Warmachine warjacks which weighed a kilo each?

A player is "fighting the UI" when they have a clear idea of what to do, but the controls (or rules) make it hard for the player to do it.

Aim: A player's ideas should be simple to implement and execute. Remove as much clutter between the player's ideas and the game. Obviously, we can't telepathically move minis, but we shouldn't be paging through the rulebook every 5 seconds, checking a table or a list of a hundred modifiers, or making too many dice rolls to resolve a simple action  - that's a sign of fighting against the rules.  

For example: If you have to roll four separate dice (each with their own modifiers) to resolve a hit, then it's 1/4th the efficiency of a single roll which does the same job. I've also largely moved away from reaction mechanics (Infinity, Tomorrow's War used to be favourites) as I often feel like I am fighting the rules - the reactions are creating too many rules exceptions/confusion and bogging the game down).

Paraphrasing the PC-gamer phrases into wargaming speak:

Game world = units, their stats, status, position and terrain
Ability = actions a unit can take (can be basic like move or shoot, or include spells, jumping, 'special abilities')

UI (Rules/Mechanics) = how a player acts with units, interacts with game world.


In a PC game, the player relies on the UI as he cannot physically interact with the virtual game world or units. It's how he interacts with the game. In wargames, the rules are part of the UI, also defining how a player can physically interact with the units.

So I'd also include the physical models and table as part of the UI - perhaps how you base your models (2" coherency, individual skirmish, in a WFB block of troops) and even the terrain (can you fit that 60mm base model on that 1" wide Necromunda hive ledge).

Go (the boardgame) has an incredibly simple UI/rules. The pieces are easy to use (satisfying too - love that 'click' noise) and manipulate, the squares are distinct, and the rules are simple (there's only 3-4!). The pieces, board and rules fade into the background. In Go you are never fighting the 'UI' - you are fighting your opponent.

Here's some thoughts I've been having as I assemble my 33rd IKEA flat pack...

Are there some wargames where you feel units/factions are needlessly bland and samey? How do you feel about 'buff strength nerf weakness' as a design motto? Will that lead to overly paper-scissors rock gameplay and is that a bad thing? Are there units in wargames which are just broken beyond balancing and need to be completely redesigned? Do wargame designers wear both design and balance hats successfully? Or do they just spend all their time on design?

Are there times you feel like you are fighting the rules? What are indicators of this or particularly common/egregious issues? How can these be mitigated?

15 comments:

  1. Rock/Paper/Scissors
    If there are enough stats or abilities to define a unit, maybe the variety in possible weakness combinations, and the degree of the weaknesses, could help prevent a rock-paper-scissors ( I've never heard of the paper-scissors-rock you speak of... ;) ) situation.

    I'll have to think about which games seem to require fighting against the rules to accomplish actions. There are some games that I love, because they are simple, but have a few extra buttons to push to keep it interesting. One I can think of is 'Dead Man's Hand'. I don't care about straight-up westerns at all (throw in vampires or robots or aliens or some such and I'm good) but the mechanics make me happy each time I play the game.

    Your blog rocks (not paper an not scissors...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure I see Rock/Paper/Scissors is bad. I mean, Napoleonics are all about the Rock/Paper/Scissors dynamic and that is one of the most popular Historical periods. Rock/Paper/Scissors is a draw! Well, that and the big hats.....

      Can you tell me a bit more about why that is bad? Does it lead to "solved" games?

      Delete
    2. Good point about the Napoleonics. I guess it isn't bad. I think if there are enough units, the R/P/S works itself out. Maybe I think it would be bad if there weren't many units.

      Delete
    3. I wonder if that is why I've never enjoyed Napoleonics? I mean, I like it as an era - I certainly enjoy movies and books about it; but as wargames (tabletop or PC) I find them very samey and dull to play or paint. (They also - in my perhaps unfair opinion - attract a 'certain kind' of gamer :-P)

      There's certainly a 'solved' R/P/S element, but also that kinda universal adoption/standard of shared technology - kinda like muskets and Age of Sail peaked; a bit like modern jets and MBTs there seems to be universal design commonalities among all nations, compared to much cooler - imo - WW2 tanks or early 50s-60s jets when designs were weird and kooky and there as more variety.

      -eM

      Delete
  2. As an old man, I don't have time to waste fighting the game, be it UI or rules mechanics. If the game doesn't speak to me, doesn't provide a satisfying experience, I walk away. If a game provides a BAD experience, that's it, I'm out.

    If you're having son try RTS games, I feel you do him a major disservice by not starting with WarCraft 2, then StarCraft. If he misses the originals that launched the genre, he won't appreciate the evolution of the genre. Similarly, you should have him play Dark Reign to appreciate and support the local team. Finally, I like Total Annihilation: Kingdoms as it's factions are more distinct and thematic than the sci-fi version.

    As for fighting the rules, that's what happened with 40k around 6th Edition, and then WFB around 8th Edition. The games got so bloated with rules and models, I couldn't devote the time needed to understand and play the current edition.

    - GG

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hola

    Intentaré responder sus preguntas, me sirve también para responderme a mí mismo.
    +¿Hay juegos de guerra en los que sientas que las unidades/facciones son innecesariamente sosas y monótonas?
    - No lo he jugado, pero cuando vi las listas de Oathmark me parecieron muy iguales: lancero, rompe líneas, arquero...eran casi las mismas unidades cambiando algún pequeño matiz. Veías un par de listas y el resto eran muy previsibles.
    He de reconocer que esto me pasa un poco también con los napoleónicos.

    +¿Qué opinas sobre el lema de diseño "mejora de la fuerza, debilitamiento de la debilidad" ?
    - En cierto modo, muchos lo hacen. Normalmente los soldados que disparan no tienen tanta armadura o un arma a dos manos no te permite usar escudo o tener una gran iniciativa...creo que un buen comienzo es, antes de crear una unidad, pensar su uso. GW vende figuras y piensa reglas para introducir esas figuras, creo que es mejor el proceso a la inversa.

    +¿Eso conducirá a una jugabilidad demasiado parecida a la de la piedra papel-tijera? ¿Es eso algo malo?
    - Supongo que depende de cómo se haga. De todos modos, no creo que sea malo el piedra - papel - tijera, muchas unidades están pensadas para eliminar a otras, como los soldados con equipo antitanque o los piqueros.

    +¿Hay unidades en los juegos de guerra que están rotas más allá de su equilibrio y necesitan ser rediseñadas por completo?
    - Sí, por eso muchos manuales requieren actualizaciones y cosas de ese estilo. También hay algunas que eclipsan a otras y no tiene sentido usar una de ellas. Creo que depende del diseño.

    +¿Los diseñadores de juegos de guerra usan los sombreros de diseño y equilibrio con éxito? ¿O simplemente dedican todo su tiempo al diseño?
    - No sabría decirlo, creo que por norma general, si el juego ha tenido pruebas de juego y se ha ido puliendo, debería de funcionar con éxito.

    +¿Hay momentos en los que sientes que estás luchando contra las reglas? ¿Cuáles son los indicadores de esto o de problemas particularmente comunes o atroces? ¿Cómo se pueden mitigar?
    - Me siento luchando contra las reglas cuando su redacción no es clara o cuando veo algo que no se corresponde con el sentido común, o cuando discutes una situación con tu rival por un vacío en el reglamento. Creo que se solucionaría con más pruebas de juego y en repasar el manual varias veces y con personas diferentes antes de publicar éste.

    Espero haber sido de ayuda, mi opinión, como la de cualquiera, es totalmente subjetiva.

    Muchas gracias y un saludo desde España.
    MM

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for bringing up "buff strengths nerf weaknesses". This is completely opposite everything I've ever heard, but it makes sense. So many games I've tomorrow with have started out flavorful and fun but with time and balancing they turn into a soggy dice fest between units with barely any functional differences. This leads to the need for victory conditions beyond total annihilation - a single solution will led to a single useful unit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It comes up a LOT in higher level discussions. For example, sports teams. You can have an incredible nose guard, running back, and an quarterback, or you can have 3 generic dudes who are super fit, but terrible role players.

      - GG

      Delete
  5. Hola
    Reflexionando sobre esto, me gustaría preguntar algo.

    Además de reforzar sus virtudes y hacer más evidentes sus defectos, ¿Creéis que una facción en un wargame ha de tener acceso a todos los tipos de unidad (caballería, tiradores, artillería...) por igual?

    Y redundando en esto ¿Cuantos tipos de unidad diferentes creéis que ha de tener disponible para elegir una facción?

    Sólo por curiosidad. Muchas gracias.
    MM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously we are ignoring historical wargames and focussing on sci fi etc where we make our own rules?

      Bear in mind in Australia I've just woken up and haven't drunk coffee, so I may not be coherent but...

      1.Equivalent/similar unit choices?
      No, I don't think a balanced roster is needed or desirable.
      I've explored how many types of units is optimal for a wargame (that you can easily control) and I think the answer was 4-12 ish.

      2. How much unit variety?
      Generally, the more interesting tools you have to solve a puzzle, the more tactics you can use. Give a skilled painter a single big wall-painting brush and he'll struggle to do a great artwork.

      Splitting say four base units infantry (skirmish, line), missile troops(archers, horse archers), cavalry (light, heavy), artillery into sub-groups could change 4 'brush sizes' into say 7...

      In short, more variety = better unless it overly complicates the game with special rules etc.

      3. You didn't ask, but...

      However from a pure wargaming sense I'm going to mention what I'll call the 5th element - an extra mechanic or resource that adds depth and interest. Say magic, or an order pool of extra activations, or a SAGA battle board - an extra factor BEYOND the usual units choices of move-shoot-melee, within terrain.

      Example: In my aeronef homebrew rules, those 'extra elements' are altitude, and special orders (like special attacks) which I cribbed from BFG. These extra elements (while not extra units) are another tool a good player can use to leverage success.

      Interesting questions! Something that could be explored in more depth perhaps...

      -eM

      Delete
    2. WRT unit types, there is the baseline:
      0. ordinary person - peasant levy / scouts

      Then 3 archetypes increasing armor, range, or mobility:
      1. Heavy Infantry - the bulk of one's fighting forces
      2. Light archers - long range strikers
      3. Fast cavalry - scouts and harassment

      The rest are blends:
      1+2 = Heavy archers - artillery / pavise crossbowmen (zero mobility)
      1+3 = Heavy cavalry - knights (zero range)
      2+3 = Horse archers (zero armor)

      All 3 = Heavy fast rangestriker - that's a dragon.

      - GG

      Delete
    3. Number of units is basic human span of attention: 5 things +/- 2.

      3 complex things or 7 simple things make for a good game, because you can try to finagle interesting 1-1 & 2-1 matchups.

      At the extremes, 1 supercomplex thing (like a RPG character), or up to a dozen mindless zombies, but the matchups aren't as good.

      This is why skirmish games and RPG parties settle in around 5 models give or take.

      - GG

      Delete
    4. Hola

      Es una buena respuesta, pero no hablaba sobre cuantas unidades en mesa, hablaba sobre cuantas opciones debe tener disponible un jugador.

      Por ejemplo, en Oathmark casi toda la infantería tiene un perfil de lancero, rompe líneas y arquero; las opciones entre jugadores son muy parecidas y cuando has visto un par, el resto son muy predecibles. Esto en cierta forma me pasa un poco con los napoleónicos también.

      En juegos como Warhammer Fantasy por ejemplo, los enanos no tienen caballería o los hombres bestia no disponen de proyectiles (creo recordar).

      La pregunta viene porque he visto jugadores que se agobian con listas de opciones muy largas y prefieren algo más breve y directo, otros prefieren muchas opciones y les gusta lo contrario.

      Yo, personalmente prefiero muchas opciones donde puedo elegir cómo realizar mi objetivo. ¿Vosotros cuantas unidades disponibles ha de tener de promedio una facción?

      No hablo de unidades en juego, si no de tipos (¿Podría decir herramientas?) disponibles.

      Y abusando de esta oportunidad ¿Creéis que todas las facciones deberían de tener acceso a las mismas cosas pero con diferentes limitaciones?

      Muchas gracias por todo. Un saludo desde España.

      MM



      Delete
    5. My earlier replies answer indirectly. Go has ONE unit type shared with each player, and only a handful of rules. Checkers has TWO unit types. Chess has SIX.

      Now consider the US Navy, how many types of ships do they have? Or consider the US Army, how many types of soldier are there?

      Abstract games do just fine with few unit types. And you can add complexity up to the limit of the real world. Warhammer splits the difference, were early editions had maybe a dozen unit types per faction, now it's easily double that.

      I'd say that a game gets interesting with a choice of a 5-7 unit types, but even 3 would be fine if they have enough equipment / training options. More than a dozen types, and you're probably gaining relatively little additional differentiation for the effort and it's time to look at a new or variant faction.

      - GG

      Delete
  6. Hola

    Ante todo muchas gracias por su respuesta. Sí, la pregunta iba enfocada a la ciencia ficción, siento no haber especificado más.

    Estoy puliendo un wargame de fantasía medieval que creamos para jugar a nivel local y mi pregunta iba enfocada a esto (y a satisfacer mi curiosidad friki). Muchas gracias.

    Básicamente es un juego de activación alterna y con dados con múltiples caras donde los modificadores afectan al dado y no a la tirada. Se juega sobre cuadrículas y es bastante sencillo, si lo desea puedo mandarle una copia en Español (estoy pasando los apuntes dispersos a un manual, ya que no hay manual porque las ocho personas que lo jugamos ya nos lo sabemos).

    El quinto elemento son puntos de mando que se generan por el número de personajes (Héroes, Generales, etc) en juego y que pueden usarse para incrementar un dado, ganar la iniciativa o realizar una reacción a una acción del oponente.

    Muchas gracias por todo, su blog es fantástico y gracias a él, y a otros como Blood and Spectacles o Wargaming Mechanics, este juego (que no tiene nombre) es posible.

    Muchas gracias de nuevo y un saludo desde España.

    MM

    ReplyDelete