Is less more?

[ClockWork]

There are many, many things going on at the same time in WarZone2100.

What this discussion aims at is simplifying the game, (or at least to hypothetical lengths,) to where it is more chess like, (But not exactly, in a name for something better.)

There are a lot of weapons, and bodies that may overlap each other. It can be hard to explore part of a game, and get lost. There are several levels of mortars, for example. Machineguns would be a good example as well. A player could have a force of mixed machine gun units, light, twin, heavy, assault and the like.

But would people be happier with less choices?

If you had one machinegun, that continually upgraded to at much like a twin assault, would it cut down confusion, research trees, and the ball of coding spaghetti?


Bodies. There is something that may not overlap. But this part is more of an observation. Could I get as much hit points with a [light body] tracks, as I would with a [heavy body] wheels? There is armor to account, and the combinations are tremendous. It takes time to get to know, all the calculations to figure. Would less, be more? Or are many choices, key?

[NoQ]

But would people be happier with less choices?

They don't care as long as more of them are good, i guess.

[Per]

I would indeed be happier with more meaningful choices and with far less of the more-of-the-same choices we have so many of now.

[Rman Virgil]

.

More is less if all the complexity but masks a narrow set of winning moves to uncover, memorize and predictably repeat.

To expand the narrow set of winning moves would be meaningful but how can you achieve that end ?

Simplifying the complexity of combat agent choice would appear a promising trajectory to explore if the resulting winning opportunities were more meaningful, satisfying and varied. All other things being equal, I think the end result following this course would certainly be a quicker learning curve but only to a similar narrow set of winning opportunities.

Another direction worth considering I think (that is not contingent on simplifying the extant choice matrix) is implement the means to facilitate the command and control of armies that expands the multi-vector maneuver options of whatever combat agent group mix choices are made and be able to do it with effective coordinated velocity between groups. This could provide the means to undermine the current focus on one frontline force concentration and open the door to volatile psychological dynamics which could make outcomes less rote and more interesting.

'Course, this could all entail more than a touch of selective exposure & confirmation bias on my part.
.

[ClockWork]

Having a plethora of cannon types would give the philological effect of being cannon strong, forcing the opponent to go routs that are strong against cannon attack. It's very understandable that a player that goes up a tech tree in certain weapon classes would generally have the more powerful weapon variant, giving away what they are teching up in.

But that's the natural rock, paper, scissor formula, to find out what your opponent has. So in reducing the amount of cannon variants, (to an extreme, only medium cannons would exist,) the battle would turn into a guessing game.

Would it then be better if weapons became obsolete again? The unfortunate twin machine gun hardly got to see the day of light because of that, however, since research happens so fast.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Making certain weapons obsolete would work best. Also balancing earch weapon line would work wonders as well.

Its not so much that there is too many choices, just too many dumb choices and some of those choices just never get a chance (in skirmish/multi) to make much difference.

Just look at the tech trees for Master of Orion 3 or Civ 5. Large trees with many choices that for the most part make sense (though granted MoO3 does have a lot of other issues).

[ClockWork]

It's up to the player, the *smart* player, to choose these choices.

I've played Civ 4 (not 5, have not got it,) and ha! I do love it, it's a really confusing. I love it because of it's long winded, tech.
Warzone, is the same way. I love it, because of it's long tech. The many things you can combine, it's entirely up to the player to explore the possibilities. That, I strongly believe, is what makes a game, a game.

When I first saw warzone, I saw not a real time strategy game, for I knew not that they existed back in the time (this was my first one after all!). It was more of an adventure game! to see what did best against what!

Yet, in the age of competitive sprit, sometimes the bulk may make the sequences to *efficiency* slower. This is, perhaps, what irks me the most. Rebuttaling a counter is necessary, but, on a scale so...huge...It can make the least experienced players dazed.

A lot of upgrades are necessary. It's the web of counter's, after all. It's hard to get rid of one thing, If it is necessary.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Since chess was invoked on the front end here let me again pose a question I asked earlier this year which in a provocative way puts a lot of WZ talk in a certain perspective worth mulling over.

I'll quote it:

...

In chess it's been estimated there are 10 to the power of 120 - possible games. Of that number, 10 to the power of 111 are possible - good games.

So roughly, how many possible good games do you think for stock WZ, T1, no bases, between players closely matched in skill ?

.

[Iluvalar]

.
So roughly, how many possible good games do you think for stock WZ, T1, no bases, between players closely matched in skill ?

In 3.1 and future 3.2, barely 2 options (FFRFCP or FFRPCF) are left.

In 2.3, considering 3 stances (rush,tech,medium) on ~7 pathes for both players. (7*3)^2= 441 possibilities.

in NRS where every of the 32 available starting line are fine and balanced, and where in general you get 3 labs running. 32^3^2 = 1E10 possible matches.

[NoQ]

~7 pathes

[Iluvalar]

mg+cannon, mg+rockets, flamer+cannon, flamer+rockets, and options to go arty or such.

Since I count 3 stances for each for a total of 21 paths, I think my count is not bad. For exemple, it would be very hard to distinguish the mg+cannon rusher from the mg+rocket rusher since both would focus on mg until later. At that point, it's easy to research both with ease and the choice of the alt weapon would be dictated by the opponent choices and opportunities.

[NoQ]

options to go arty or such.

Never seen anything like that in a real 1x1 as a separate option that doesn't involve going for one of the four first (and your analysis of 3.x seems to be for that case). In fact, hardly ever seen successful flamer+rocket strategies (apart from deep ffa when you go pure rockets and sometimes get infernos to kill ag borgs before seraphs appear while mras are no longer enough).