Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

Recent

Hottest

Forum Index » General Discussion
1 2 ► Go Go to page...

Author

Message

Oct 09, 2009 13:03

Subject: Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

PintOfAle

Messages: 8,
Joined: Jun 10, 2009,
Offline

I was thinking about a key difference between Uniwar and other turn-based strategy games I've played, and in particular Strategic Conquest, which I still enjoy playing. (http://www.deltatao.com/stratcon/)

In Uniwar victory is heavily tied to who gets the most bases. I recognise it's not totally that simple, but the number of games I've seen where a base count underdog has overpowered the other player is very, very few. This makes the base grab phase of the game the most important. However, in StratCon, it is often possible for a base count underdog to win a game or at least drag the game out for a long time - which got me thinking, why is that?

In StratCon, there is no concept of credits, any base can build any unit at any time (putting aside the difference between land and sea bases). What changes is the number of turns each unit type takes to build. In other words, when you build a unit it does not appear the next turn, it may take a few turns before its ready.

In Uniwar, you need credits to build units, and credits are tied to the number of bases you have. This means that a player with more bases will over time build more of the more powerful units - particularly the ranged attack units - Battery/Wyrm/Walker. The base count underdog cannot build these units due to a lack of credits, and gets overwhelmed - and no expert strategy is going to overcome that (well, unless the base count favourite is a completely inept player!)

For me, Uniwar games are winner-predictable within the first 5 turns for most games - based on the base-grab phase. I've played a few where it has taken 20 turns to become winner-predictable, but not many.

The StratCon approach for creating units is fundamentally different to Uniwar, but from my experience does require more 'strategic gameplay' in the way that units are utilised - it is not all about who has the most credits and builds the most powerful units.

How does this apply to Uniwar... I'm not sure, but for a future version it may be interesting to introduce units that take multiple turns to build, or you get a credit discount if you build it over two turns instead of in one turn. That would enable a base count underdog to get more powerful units and possibly out-manoeuvre the base count winner.

Discuss!

PintOfAle

Oct 09, 2009 13:09

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

kralux

Messages: 223,
Joined: Jun 01, 2009,
Location: California, USA
Offline

PintOfAle, you are 100% right. You are making a very good point and we have realized that taking bases is a critical aspect of the game.
Once you have lost a base in a 1v1 game, you are pretty much done (except on a few new maps we added that have many bases, for that very purpose so that losing one is not that detrimental).
We are looking at ways to make the base grab less meaningful so that even more strategy can be employed in the game. Stay tuned...

Others, let us know what you think.

Oct 10, 2009 07:51

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

newuser

Messages: 60,
Joined: Jun 12, 2009,
Offline

Wow I used to love Strategic Conquest ... haven't heard about it in a long time.

One cool thing about StratCon that you could probably implement in Uniwar without much effort is the randomly generated map. Then when you get into a game NOBODY knows what it looks like due to the fog of war. Could make for a very interesting multi-player scenario.

Oct 10, 2009 17:25

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

draka

Messages: 38,
Joined: Jun 16, 2009,
Offline

A post i made ages ago is that you can x number of credits at the start and no bases at all the winner being the the last man standing.

this would only work on large maps where everyone is out of range at the start, but i personally would LOVE to play like this

Oct 10, 2009 17:48

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

ahbritto

Messages: 35,
Joined: Jun 05, 2009,
Offline

Just be happy you never saw the code for Strategic Conquest. It would do things twice to make sure they were done right.

Oct 11, 2009 06:16

Subject: Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

Hachiman

Messages: 118,
Joined: Jun 25, 2009,
Offline

I think decisive gameplay is likely a positive for a mobile TBS game. I certainly think gameplay that allows a certain loser to "drag the game out for a long time" is not ideal when that could make a win take several days, or weeks.

I reckon more "many bases, low credits per base" is a good solution (and these are some of the more interesting maps - more please!)

Oct 12, 2009 10:14

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

malachi

Messages: 16,
Joined: Sep 02, 2009,
Offline

I agree strongly with the post above that the maps that have low credits per base are better with regards to this issue.

These setups are much better for balance too because it reduces the benefit of having the initiative (going first).

Oct 16, 2009 15:11

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

NatSelection

Messages: 8,
Joined: Oct 16, 2009,
Offline

Just untie credit income from base control. Problem solved. Can I haz my commission?

Nobody can win without capturing the bases, so it isn't as if players will just ignore capturing bases.

Bases offer strategic options to the players by allowing the creation of units at location X.

Capturing opponents bases frees your line from defending against that direction.

If more credits per base increases the win-predictability of a game, and less credits per base decreases the win-predictability, then doesn't it follow that 0 credits per base would nigh-eliminate the win-predictability (concerning the capturing of a single base).

In this way, a player increases their advantage by winning skirmishes rather than by capturing bases. An effective attack can easily wipe out 2-3x as many credits as it took to pull off. If you make gaining the advantage about commanding your troops well, instead of holding bases, then wouldn't that push the emphasis toward strategy?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 16, 2009 15:12

Oct 22, 2009 07:36

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

malachi

Messages: 16,
Joined: Sep 02, 2009,
Offline

Capturing a base actually costs credits by absorbing your unit. I think the base should have some income, albeit small, to offset this investment. Or make it like some map games where some squares give income and some cost . . .

Oct 22, 2009 12:31

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

NatSelection

Messages: 8,
Joined: Oct 16, 2009,
Offline

True, it does cost credits to capture a base, but if you decide not to capture a base you hand your opponent that advantage. However, if used wisely, a base definitely pays for itself over time even if you untied base control from credit income.

A base provides you with many economic advantages:

Units you build can spend more time attacking / defending and less time in transit.

Bases further back in your line now have a buffer between them and the action.

Gain the ability to build certain units (wharfs) / Deny your opponent those same unit options.

However, because bases are no longer cash cows:

It is not necessarily a good idea to capture a base if you cannot / will not defend it.

You are offered new strategic uses for bases (such as sacrificing a base to defer an opponents force and buy time).

Think of it this way; you'd gladly pay 100cr for a unit that could be deployed allowing you to build units at its deployed location, right? Even if the deployed unit didn't pay you 100-250cr each turn, that strategic option would be worth having for only 100cr. If bases no longer give you income, then that is exactly what is offered to you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at Oct 22, 2009 12:32

Nov 09, 2009 20:44

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

The Dogalyst

Messages: 22,
Joined: Jul 13, 2009,
Offline

NatSelection +1

Dec 01, 2009 20:41

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

T-034

Messages: 1,
Joined: Dec 01, 2009,
Offline

Joining the thread late to second Malachi ... this issue is one reason I like Starvation and Laguna Niguel. You can lose a base and still come back to win.

Dec 20, 2009 12:05

Subject: Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

commentor

Messages: 51,
Joined: Dec 16, 2009,
Offline

i've never seen anyone lose a base in starvation or laguna nigel and come back to win. you have to play pretty bad to lose after capturing their base first.

Jan 17, 2010 15:36

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

kahnibus

Messages: 7,
Joined: Jan 05, 2010,
Location: Oswego
Offline

I agree with this completely!

But let's not forget how great the dev. team is at UNIWAR to take our comments and included them in future releases.

-- Music never dies only the people who listen to it do.

Mar 03, 2010 19:18

Subject: Re:Importance of strategic gameplay vs. base grab

charnal

Messages: 63,
Joined: Mar 03, 2010,
Offline

Few things:

I like the idea of taking income off of bases. The income would have to rely on something else. Perhaps certain units themselves have income. Of course, this would just cause a rush for those units. Perhaps income depends on every map. For example, every player receives 200 credits when they start their turn.

Of course, this would have to be a small map because when you spread yourself out, it is harder to take care of all your fronts. BUT, that might be where winning depends on how you play, not how many credits you have, because suddenly the smaller players have the advantage of having be more efficient (they are not spread thin). So you would have to build up before attacking.

I think it's a great idea.

About maps like starvation, maps where the bases have less than 100 credits as income. I REALLY like these maps because you can win even when you are losing. For example, I was playing AI. I was khraleans. I stuffed the ground with 11 or so underlings and put one next to each of their bases and emerged them all in one turn. The AI couldn't possibly defend ALL its bases so I won a few, turning the tide in my favor.

Also, they have to spend credits putting down the revolution, so they stops supplying the front lines. Even if ou lose bases back there, hopefully they got out too much infrastructure to put down the outbreak, allowing you to take some of the front line bases. This method could work with Titans, too, with the teleport idea.

I like the idea of having a certain amount of credits to start with and just duking it out with other players. For example, everyone gets 5000 credits to spend. You place all your units in a specific starting area and start. No bases, just the terrain bonus and the strength/weakness techniques. I think it would be great.

One more thing:

I would like to see an editor icon for single player. Not for online, play, of course, but just a place where you could have fun and create your own map and either give yourself a challenge or make it cruel to your enemy AI.

Also, perhaps players could submit maps and those that were "fair" would be released into a different section (Like, there is a section for the games that already exist, and another section for player-generated maps). Of course, the creator of the map would be credited by their username or anonomous if they didn't play online (unlikely though).

The most dangerous enemy is the one nobody fears

Forum Index » General Discussion
1 2 ► Go Go to page...