What kind of a strategist are you? (gaming)

[Jamshyd]

How do you play your strategy games?

Me? I don't deny I'm a total fag when it comes to strategy . I care a LOT more about how the city looks and how attractive my units are than my -20009453 gold or the fact that my whole nation is a single city completely engulfed by France who is about to declare war on me..

On a more realistic level, I'd rather have a few impenetrably defended towns/centres than a hundred undefended ones. I always rely on diplomacy first. I seem to do best as a small island nation with powerful navy/aircraft and almost no ground units.

That said, I think I enjoy my strategy gaming more than most people, whose prime objective is to amass numbers. This is especially true for southeast Asians (usually playing Starcraft). The game is set on the highest speed (and probably even turbo-cheated) and all their actions and reactions are automated. I am not sure exactly where the "game" part of the game comes in... I spend a lot of my time crafting my nation's reputation, beauty, and levelling up technology and units.

Needless to say, I almost always lose at strategy games. But hey, I lose fabulously . And if I DO win, it is usually a god-like win.

 

[Don Luigi]

I also prefer being the cunt with the island nation, with great coastal fortifications, allowing me to focus on my navy and airforce with as little ground units as possible. I want to build up my technological advantage and also control the air and seas before I try to project any land power.

Though sometimes I don't get to pick those circumstances. This strategy is mostly referring to Hearts Of Iron II.

 

[toastedpanda]

It's all about warfare for me, damn the resource gathering, and let me build my army and devestate the enemy. I really don't like building up cities and gathering resources. World In Conflict and Company Oh Heros are more my style.

 

[GenericMind]

I'm all about isolation and internal growth until I'm confident I have a strong enough force to go out and completely dominate the world in one swoop.

 

[scureto1]

I prefer to play with rapid expansion into all available empty (or unguarded) space. I typically do badly against someone who rapidly builds military and attacks, since a lot of my resources were spent expanding and my forces are divided.

But against people who like to stay isolated and build up first, I do very well, because as soon as the expansion is done and the building up begins, I'm building at a much faster rate than they are, with all the territory/resources I now have.

 

[aanallein]

I prefer to play with rapid expansion into all available empty (or unguarded) space. I typically do badly against someone who rapidly builds military and attacks, since a lot of my resources were spent expanding and my forces are divided.

But against people who like to stay isolated and build up first, I do very well, because as soon as the expansion is done and the building up begins, I'm building at a much faster rate than they are, with all the territory/resources I now have.

ditto. rapid expansion then settle down for a period of economic stability/growth (but dont over do this) and immediately declare war on a neighbor when you have enough units to take a city or 2. something i've learned is that you can always declare without enough troops to win a war - switching to a war economy is all about massing troops anyway so get the ball rolling asap and crush them before they get on their feet. a lot of times on strat games people will try to amass units enough to utterly crush a foe but by the time they've done so, all those units are obsolete or their upkeep is draining you dry. or they spend too long building buildings that aren't particularly useful.

aside from that its pillage pillage pillage.

 

[-Guido-]

Tactics and superior technology followed by efficient production of units.

 

[Jamshyd]

Interesting that no one else seem to care much for diplomacy...

I guess most people play with human opponents. But even then, I am still a good diplomat. I try to win people's favour to give myself as much time as possible to develop.

Also, in games where you can bribe or convert, I had managed to take over whole nations by buying them out or convincing them to join me, or at the very least, turning their own units against them .

Needless to say, I definitely prefer turn-based over RTS.

 

[Indykid Vago]

As a control style player I tent to gravitate towards tactics involving targeted removal and infiltration (heavy scouting, cloaking or long range attacks)... but soemtime a rush is the best way to win.

 

[neonads]

Sadly, there's very few games with good diplomatic AI. I always try first with diplomacy but often get frustrated when the AI goes it alone or backstabs me for no apparent reason. Europa Universalis III probably has the best AI, and is my fav title.

My strategy is usually a quick rush followed by rapid expansion to gain initiative, layered defenses with early warning scouts, war of attrition to weaken, spearhead assault to break them, encirclement or flanking to mop up, then a lull while I prepare for postwar conditions before they arrive.

I prefer the land powers, navies are a headache - too much ocean to cover.

 

[EA-1475]

My stategy at Civ is follows. At first, expand, expand, expand. When I bump into other civs in every direction, I stop. Then it's all infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
I spend most of the rest of the game developing and kissing the ass of all other Civs. Do my best to avoid wars and one starts make peace at the first opportunity.
IMO, war is very costly and inefficient until the invention of the tank. Once I get tanks (and I do my best to get it before anyone), nigga it's on!

 

[socko]

1. Massive population growth
2. Total deforestation
3. Rush build powerful armies
4. Sprog settlers for 100% urban sprawl
5. ???
6. Victory

??? = some combination of eplore the map as quickly as possible, monopolize strategic resources, and threaten enemies with diplomacy

 

[Don Luigi]

Sadly, there's very few games with good diplomatic AI. I always try first with diplomacy but often get frustrated when the AI goes it alone or backstabs me for no apparent reason. Europa Universalis III probably has the best AI, and is my fav title.

My strategy is usually a quick rush followed by rapid expansion to gain initiative, layered defenses with early warning scouts, war of attrition to weaken, spearhead assault to break them, encirclement or flanking to mop up, then a lull while I prepare for postwar conditions before they arrive.

I prefer the land powers, navies are a headache - too much ocean to cover.

Paradox make such good strategy games but don't seem to have a big fan base for some reason.

 

[Kerrigan]

I like to learn the strategies used frequently by other gamers first, then consider various counter-measures. With 'C&C: Generals' I noticed that most players attempt to "rush" you; they send a little troop carrier with some infantry inside and then attempt to destroy your base. So many times have I seen the exact same strategy being employed by each side that the units actually pass each other at the middle of the map!

I think it's best to appear weak to your enemy whilst you're churning out as many powerful and versatile units as possible out of sight and not so far away from the enemy base. Eventually, they send out hundreds of tanks, attempting to crush you, but whilst they're only halfway there, I'm demolishing their base...

I dislike the fact that many so-called "strategy" games rely on quickly clicking as fast as possible on certain units and employing methods that end the game extremely quickly without any fun at all--as with the above "rushing" techniques--and would prefer something like 'Cossacks', where terrain can be used to your (dis)advantage and having more units doesn't make you the winner!

With the 'XCOM' games, and the newer versions (UFO: Extraterrestrials, etc) I keep my team in small groups of two or three men at once; when they run out of time, they're always backed up against a wall, looking both ways to ensure they're not sneaked up on with enough points left to shoot back if fired upon.

I suppose one could say that I'm rather cautious, which means that I often lose, though I do put up a decent fight. I recall playing 'C&C: Red Alert' on the PSX with a friend who'd later become a professional gamer and--"they only won 'cause the map gave them the advantage"--'second best' Warcraft 3 player in the world. We'd both amass giant armies of tanks, and after hours of gathering resources, building units and getting them all ready, the game ended up crashing when the units were less than a screen apart! Linking up two PSX consoles was a little troublesome, but it was definitely fun...

Oh, and I wouldn't say that strategy only applies to the games under the 'Strategy' genre: there are FPS games that involve teamwork and decent tactics in order to win (as well as absolutely perfect aiming, o' course) and I love to play a good game of 'Crysis'.

I know this is off-topic, but I reckon 'S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl' could've done better if it wasn't a first-person shooter. Afterall, it does involve strategy and decision making... A nice, multiplayer RPG could've come out of it. But perhaps I'm just thinking of how much I'd like there to be multiplayer 'Fallout'...

 

[Swerlz]

^holy shit.. an old face from the depths

I go for mass production of units, with research and development in full swing.. And when the time is right.. STRIKE!

 

[neonads]

Paradox make such good strategy games but don't seem to have a big fan base for some reason.

Yeah, I don't get it either. You can even get mods to port your Europa Universalis game over to Victoria, and then over to Hearts of Iron. With the expansions thats day-by-day strategy from 1399 to 1964!

 

[Jamshyd]

I dislike the fact that many so-called "strategy" games rely on quickly clicking as fast as possible on certain units and employing methods that end the game extremely quickly without any fun at all--as with the above "rushing" techniques

I completely agree!

... but it seems that the whole eastern half of Asia thinks otherwise .

 

[postlapsarian]

I'm all about isolation and internal growth until I'm confident I have a strong enough force to go out and completely dominate the world in one swoop.

This.

I think I have a disorder of some kind, because I absolutely cannot adjust my strategy I do the same thing every time I play an RTS.

 

[L2R]

i am the impatient fool. as soon as i get a few guys together i go on futile suicide missions.


i miss enjoying strategy games but when they got too complicated i just gave up. i don't have enough time to learn to play them with any decency.

 

[rangrz]

JAM- I take it you are referring to medieval II or some variant of it?...just seems like that.

In that game, I usually go for a good economy and then lots and lots heavy infantry like dismount feudal/chival/teutonic knights and then more or less just a bloodbath galore until I subdue my oppoent, all while keeping good diplomatic ties with the other factions by using "gifts" of good amounts of florins. the weak spot is I need alot of cities to make the money, and thus is my army gets pwned, it takes forever to get another one up front from one of my few castles/send that one back for re-training.

in most other RTS..CnC, starcraft, that kinda thing, I go soviet style doctrine...a pile of shitty cheap units and pile of heavy armour and just RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE and keep throwing waves of this at them.