The Shrine

I was reading some random posts and thinking about all the strategy games I've played and something dawned on me. If you can play a strategy game without losing a unit, the game has some fundamental issues. It's not because you are good, but that your opponent (human or AI) is ridiculously bad. There are obvious exceptions like it might be possible if you play the best Starcraft 2 player in the world and he teched straight up to the most durable unit of his race and then never lost any of them while spanking you handily. But in general if you cannot even kill a unit that is clearly meant to be killed easily there is something fundamental wrong with the game.

Now it might sound pretty ridiculous since that's not even true in Starcraft (outside of some special units) and Starcraft isn't even a very deep strategy game, and yet there are plenty of strategy games that are like that. Virtually all the Panzer General line are like this, and even Advanced Daisenryaku (SystemSoft makes some really hardcore strategy games) is like this on the campaign mode. In the latter case it's not even because of a weak AI (the AI is very good). Civ 5 is another example, which is interesting because Civ 1/2 is definitely not. In fact these games, on a strategy level, resemble more like SRPGs than strategy game. Actually it's more likely you lose a unit in a real SRPG (say, FF Tactics) than most of these SRPG wannabes since a SRPG will actually have boss units that are designed to kill your units.

I suppose some can be blamed on the incompetence of the opponent (AI), like Civ 5, but most of the time it reveals some fundamental design error. Panzer General line and Advanced Daisenryaku is simply not winnable if you ever lost a unit since the final mission features totally impossible odds (Battle of Washington/Berlin) that can only be defeated by a bunch of godlike max XP, max tech units. Such a game would mean there is no attrition (since you never lost any unit), so there would be no concept of a setback. This doesn't mean you have to lose, but in the games I've mentioned I've never felt the need to slow down and recover. It's just keep on attack until I get bored since you never lost anything.

So maybe in retrospect, Starcraft is actually deeper than a lot of the games out there. Certainly it is not remotely possible to beat someone in all but the wildest disparity in skill differences without losing a unit. Certainly, having such concepts makes the player feel like it's going somewhere. If you play someone and it's just an inexorable offense until the other dies it would not be a very exciting game for you or the opponent.

Civ 5 can have that done fairly easily with King difficulty or less; but I still lose quite a bit on the Immortal and Deity Levels... Although I have a much easier time finishing these levels of difficulty in Civ 5 than the previous four games; as the game currently stands. There are ongoing updates, including one major one a little while ago.

The flaw in Civ 5 is that ranged units are unstoppable if placed correctly.

While FFT is considered a strategy title, I don't find that I use strategy often; it is not like other games in the genre where I consider each move I make. Most often when I am forced to think about moves, it is to abuse the system to ensure some sort of outcome (ie. Winning the Wiglaf battle by yelling 10 times to increase speed).

Julius Seeker wrote:While FFT is considered a strategy title, I don't find that I use strategy often; it is not like other games in the genre where I consider each move I make. Most often when I am forced to think about moves, it is to abuse the system to ensure some sort of outcome (ie. Winning the Wiglaf battle by yelling 10 times to increase speed).

I did, for the most part. While it's not as punishing as chess for making the wrong move, making a few wrong moves can really cost you the game.

The problem is your max XP Panther G in Advanced Daisenryaku or level 10 Artillery in Panzer General 3/Civ 5 might as well be called Ramza Beoulve or even Orlandu and unlike FFT there isn't a Wiegraf to counter your Ramza. In FFT, take the battle where you've to fight Gafgarion while separated. If you don't have the right skills for Ramza (generally would have to go defensive on that fight until you can rejoin your party) you're pretty much dead. Now that certainly makes the game frustrating but that's what a good strategy game should be. You should definitely be able to lose a unit (even your key one) if you made some mistakes. For a strategy game with XP (but not SRPG) it is almost impossible to lose a unit unless you completely missed 20 units coming your way. And yet that makes them RPGs that you move on a grid, not even a SRPG because you actually do lose units in a game like FFT on a regular basis if you're not abusing broken skills.

Even on a game like Fire Emblem or Langrisser where you're not supposed to lose units, it is certainly quite possible to lose one if you judge your enemy's strength wrong. The idea of 5 high level units just cleaning out enemy forever is absurd even on a SRPG, let alone a game that calls itself just a strategy game. There is only one Orlandu in FFT, and even he can potentially die. You've a higher chance of losing Orlandu to say, 2 generic equal level Knight enemy (maybe get unlucky and have weapon broken if you don't got maintenance), then losing a max XP Panther G in most world war 2 simulators, and I can assure you Panther G are not so powerful that they're like the Orlandu of tanks.