Quote:Original post by Girsanov
Is there no way to make a strategy game without a board/map, randomness, uncertainty (rock-paper-scissor, simultaneous decisions etc) and hidden info?

Are strategy games all about 1)having so many moves possible on the board that players cannot calculate everything or 2) element of chance through randomness or uncertainty or hidden info?

Is it possible to have a game like Chess without the assistance of the board? Where players can see all the pieces in the game and make decision turn by turn without tight time limits or require reflexes.

This is something I've considered at length.

I think the answer to your second question is yes, or near enough. Because when you take the opposite approach and say that the game can have so few moves that players can predict every reasonable possibility, and remove the element of chance that makes it harder to calculate which circumstances are likely to arise, then you're left with a game that both players can fully analyse from beginning to end. And under those circumstances the winner is dictated by the game rules rather than the player. eg. Tic-Tac-Toe has an optimal strategy. Obviously this game is still fun for some, particularly those who are not yet wise enough to work out that such a strategy is within easy reach. But most players are more advanced than that and so the game must provide more complexity to prevent them from deducing an ideal strategy.

However, alongside randomness, hidden information, and complex state spaces via 2D abstractions, I would also say you can opt for continuous state space rather than a discrete state space. Consider Scorched Earth/Worms, for example - the almost infinite number of angles you can aim your shot at make planning your shot more interesting and less predictable.

It's worth considering your board/map comment though because I think it's the wrong level of abstraction to think about. Chess is complex not because of the board as such but because there are a vast number of possible states - the board just provides a good representation for the way they interact. In fact, when viewed from this angle the board actually makes it simpler. It exploits a person's prior knowledge of adjacency and geometry to make it easier for players to reason about the transitions between the different game states. Advanced players might be able to play Chess just by looking at the Forsyth notation of a position, as would a chess computer, but the board itself helps the human player! But the game can still be played without the board; it's just a representation of the rules and the current state. (In fact, the positioning of pieces on the board it can be thought of as a visualisation of a state machine, if you're familiar with them - and pretty much any turn-based game can be reduced to a state machine. Learning the game is about realising which states are similar to others.)

Quote:Original post by Konidias
The increasingly popular game Steambirds is turnbased with no board or real randomness or hidden info.

You can play it here:
http://armorgames.com/play/5426/steambirds

Essentially you can choose to fly your planes anywhere on the map, so there's no real grid in sight. Enemy info is displayed to you when you highlight them, so there's no hidden attacks or anything.

Every now and then you lose control of a rudder which makes it so you can only steer in one direction or fly straight, but this is due to taking damage (I think) so it's not a totally random encounter. Instead it just creates temporary limitations on movement. Every other turn you also get to choose from two "skills" that each unit can use. From leaving gas trails to a turbo boost of speed, to doing a 180.

Right now the game is pretty simple but the developer is apparently working on expanding it a lot more.

I think it's pretty fun and inspiring and it sounds like something you were describing so I figured I'd let you know. :)

It reminds me of chess without the grid board and with little airplanes instead of chess pieces.

great recommendation!

the concept of this game was actually discussed on these boards 1-2 months ago. probably a coincidence they had the same concept though.

Quote:Original post by Kylotan
However, alongside randomness, hidden information, and complex state spaces via 2D abstractions, I would also say you can opt for continuous state space rather than a discrete state space. Consider Scorched Earth/Worms, for example - the almost infinite number of angles you can aim your shot at make planning your shot more interesting and less predictable.

I was actually trying to figure out how strategy games work and so broke games down part by part to see what is the "essence". The addition of spatial dimensions (2D chess board or height-horizontal-2D space in Worms) seems to be one of the component of strategy games, along with randomness/luck and hidden information.

Quote:Original post by Kylotan

It's worth considering your board/map comment though because I think it's the wrong level of abstraction to think about. Chess is complex not because of the board as such but because there are a vast number of possible states - the board just provides a good representation for the way they interact. In fact, when viewed from this angle the board actually makes it simpler. It exploits a person's prior knowledge of adjacency and geometry to make it easier for players to reason about the transitions between the different game states. Advanced players might be able to play Chess just by looking at the Forsyth notation of a position, as would a chess computer, but the board itself helps the human player! But the game can still be played without the board; it's just a representation of the rules and the current state. (In fact, the positioning of pieces on the board it can be thought of as a visualisation of a state machine, if you're familiar with them - and pretty much any turn-based game can be reduced to a state machine. Learning the game is about realising which states are similar to others.)

Very good and interesting point. I think we're talking about the same thing in different ways: I too see games as just a collection of states. The board is a tool that increase the number of states (i was tempted to say cardinality of the state space lol) tremendously.

But can a strategy game work without the traditional state-increasing-tools like spatial dimensions (board, map, grid, location/direction etc), randomness (dice, shuffling cards, guessing, time limit etc) and hidden information (simultaneous decisions, hidden objects/moves etc)? These 3 seems to be vital to any strategy game...which is a conclusion that I will accept! (not hell-bent on making my requirements work)

Quote:Original post by LorenzoGatti
This is not true: rudder damage is a large random factor (if you can't turn your plan is ruined) and predicting simultaneous AI moves is easy but even more important.

From the point of view of the discussion in this thread, these elements make Steambirds a very traditional strategy game, similar to gridless tabletop miniature combat games like Warhammer that share the same emphasis on eyeballing angles and distances to plan movements and attack ranges over multiple turns.

Yes. It has 1) randomness 2) hidden information (simultaneous decisions => can't tell what your opponent is going to do) and 3) 2D board/map.

I am beginning to believe it is not possible to make a viable strategy game without at least one of these 3 elements!

Anyone wanna try this simple experiment? Lets add as little complexity as possible to this "game" and see if we can make it viable enough to be played! Feel free to edit the basic rules too.

Basic Rules
-----------

- 2 players. 1v1.
- Pick someone to start first and the other start second.
- Each player control a character with 40 hp.
- Each turn, they may choose to attack with their character for 5 damage.

Analysis
--------

First player to start win since he can attack first and do 5 addition damage. He will win after 8 turns with 5 hp left.

Well, I'm stuck. I honestly have no idea how to build from a trivially solvable game towards a non-trivial one without using one of the tools we already talked about.