What on earth am I talking about?
Conditioning is restriction, a challenge to overcome with cure.

Example, lets say there is a battle that is about to go off, on a grass land with no hills, rivers or lakes.

Both sides can only have 100 troops each, but one of them gets and INITIATION because they managed to spot the other first. So, they moved their 20 shield barers to the front.

The other only just managed to spot the other army, but because they have shielders in front, attacking them from the front is a no go. This is CONDITIONING, so he ordered 20 footmen to flank the enemy from the side or the back, this is CURE.

But, the other realised what he is doing ordered his 20 archers to shot the footmen before they get near him, this is also a CURE to his flank which was a CONDITIONING to him.

Only 5 footmen survived and managed to return. So, he ordered his 10 only horsemen to charge the enemy archer to kill them, which they did, but losing their lives at the same time. Which is his CURE to his enemies's CONDITION.

At this point one side have 80 troops left and the other have 75 left.

This is what strategy is, the general that can do the most damage while spending as little lives as possible is the general that is the best.

Most games seems to not get this, and opped to using stats to overpower the other, while the strength of the army plays a key roll, they are not the most important, some of the greatest generals are those who knows how to use the environment to their advantage. From building a dam up river to flood the enemies down river when they get close, to using the river's currents to make large fleets crash into each other.

Thanks for reading!

Whoever fights this way in real life is probably not a good general.

Good story but what's the point?

Commodore Jack Teach wrote:Good story but what's the point?

The point is way too many games went with the path of, whoever have the highest forces wins, and calls it a strategy game, it infuriates me.

Grimrock Litless wrote:

Commodore Jack Teach wrote:Good story but what's the point?

The point is way too many games went with the path of, whoever have the highest forces wins, and calls it a strategy game, it infuriates me.

That's the general principle. Assuming that a lot of a factors (armament, training, fatigue, etc.) are the same, those with the larger force will have a tendency to win. In game design, even the simplest strategies are anything but. There are numerous factors that must be considered.

Grimrock Litless wrote:

Commodore Jack Teach wrote:Good story but what's the point?

The point is way too many games went with the path of, whoever have the highest forces wins, and calls it a strategy game, it infuriates me.

I see. Is this game a good strategy game do you think?

Commodore Jack Teach wrote:

Grimrock Litless wrote:

Commodore Jack Teach wrote:Good story but what's the point?

The point is way too many games went with the path of, whoever have the highest forces wins, and calls it a strategy game, it infuriates me.

I see. Is this game a good strategy game do you think?

Nope, while the conditioning and cure part is there.

You want to damage a ship, use Vengeance of the Witch Doctor, Fireship or Swarm of Worms etc.

But a large chunk of it is who has the larger voodoo chest in the end. Which is common with P2W games.

Chess is a good example of a good strategy game, everyone can beat each other, each pieces have an advantage over the other if placed correctly. But the game is not a balanced game, white has an advantage because he start first, but that's okay, because if a game is too balanced, it will be dull and boring. Example : Checkers.

There are strategies to playing checkers.

DezNutz wrote:There are strategies to playing checkers.

hell there are strategies for pretty much any game save for a few. Hell Tic tac toe even has very basic strategy.