Don't confuse "fun" with "strategic" in the Luck vs. Strategy debate. Luck can add a fun factor to both computer and board games, but it won't make the game more strategic in nature.

As another poster pointed out. Strategy is what happens when the player can't hold the whole state space in their mind at once. tic tac toe isn't strategic to just about anyone over the age of six because at any stage of the game you know how to win or tie you don't have to employ a strategy to play the game. Strategy by definition is making a move with out knowing ahead of time if it will be successful. If it is known "winner" then it is an algorithm not a strategy.

Wow, I'm amazed to see so many replies! There are so many great thoughts and ideas in this thread it's hard to keep up, but I'll try to provide some more thoughts on some of them at least.

Quote:I've found that strategy games are just puzzle games that you play against one or multiple opponents. Almost all puzzle games are solitary or cooperative tasks. However, if you turn the rules around, and make it competitive, then a puzzle game becomes a strategy game.

This is a very good point. The validity of the statement would depend largely on the implementation of it I believe, though in every case I can think of it could be true. For example if a game like Gridlock were made into a simple split-screen game it could become a competitive puzzle game with no real element of strategy, but if both players were forced to work with the same board and compete to reach the exit first then strategy comes into play. One could theoretically even hinder their opponent and make progress toward their own goal by moving a single block in this type of game.

Quote:It is deception.

As you state this isn't necessarily the essence of strategy since a good strategy game can exist without it. I do believe it is still good advice on the actual design of a strategy game though.

Quote:I think you are quite close. However, rather than the "essence" of strategy, you are talking about methods to implimnet strategy.

Very true. The line between the two is somewhat blurry, so it's easy to confuse them. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

Quote:One thing I think is the essence of strategy is emergence. A huge amount of complexity arises out of a small set of rules.

Thanks for this thought! This answer is very close in my opinion, plus it gave me a new term to research. There are many other good answers here though, despite being quite different from this one. There's also a question of where it lies on the line between concept and implementation..

Quote:I've given quite a bit of thought to that already, actually.(...)

Thanks for sharing! I thoroughly enjoyed reading the document, though I'm afraid I'm not in a position to offer any critique. It seems you've already put far more thought into the subject than I have. [smile]

Quote:I don't like the 'strategy' tag as then you get into debates over the difference between strategy and tactics.

Borrowing from leiavoia's excellent writing I would, for the purposes of discussion, define strategy as the accumulation of short-term actions (tactics) toward a long term goal. Discussion of tactics is by no means forbidden, but when I refer to "strategy" that is my intended meaning. Sorry if I caused any confusion!

Quote:As another poster pointed out. Strategy is what happens when the player can't hold the whole state space in their mind at once.

So then by that definition a strategy game would any complex, competitive game. Emergence seems like a good companion to that, since it lends complexity to the game without complicating matters unnecessarily for the player like the resource management and/or long lists of rules that some strategy games implement.

I'm afraid I don't have anything new or radically different to contribute at the moment, but I'll keep thinking on it and watching here for further insight. [smile]