Geryk Analysis: Rise of Legends: Bruce Geryk couldn`t Caylus

[TomChick]

You've read what Tom Chick thinks of Rise of Legends. You've read what Brett "Toddy" Todd thinks of Rise of Legends. Now read what Bruce Geryk thinks. Just a warning: as usual, there's going to be a bunch of stuff about board gaming in there.

[Alan Au]

This is like all those games I've played that have weird degenerate strategies that shouldn't work but inexplicably do. Then it turns out that most of the weird strategies work equally well, which is to say equally badly, except that they're really not that much worse than the "obvious" strategies, and with the added benefit that the other guy most certainly will not have seen it coming.

- Alan

[Damien Neil]

Very nice analysis/review/discussion/etc.

It brought into focus what I really want out of an RTS, which none that I've played provides: I want a German game RTS.

German games (which are not necessarily the same as games written by Germans) are noted for having fewer choices, but a large amount of importance attached to each choice. Unlike Risk, or Monopoly, or Axis & Allies, where you can potentially go for several turns without making a decisive move, German games tend to present a significantly game-affecting decision every time you move.

Furthermore, you can see the effects of these decisions both immediately and in the long term. You'll gnash your teeth as you realize that you should have built a road last turn instead of a settlement, or that you should have shipped goods overseas rather than building infrastructure. When you lose, you can clearly say where you went wrong.

At the same time, a good German game offers choices that interact with each other in complex ways, so that it isn't immediately apparent what the best move will be. The better player will tend to win, and there's a long scale of achievement from neophyte to master.

I'd like to see an RTS that works like that.

[Jason McCullough]

Originally Posted by Bruce Geryk

Sure, there’s probably some story in the single-player campaign I’m never going to play, but good game design can’t depend on some ancillary play mode.

I remember endless arguments about this - wasn't the answer that RTS purchasers are a small hardcore set of multiplayer gamers and a broad pool of single player gamers?

[Rod Humble]

Insightful article / discussion/ thread, thank you.

I havent played Rise of Legends or Caylus but what Bruce wrote struck a chord. The structure of game rules , what they can mean and where they reside has been on my mind a lot recently.

I think there is a difference between games where all the rules can fit into a players head and where there are so many that they must be stored somewhere during play (a rule book or computer code) with only a subset being held in the players head at one time.

If they can all be held in the players head at once then the player has more freedom to think about strategy and interesting choices.

If they cant all be held in the players head then the player can enjoy the surprise and exploration of the content and rule interactions which he cannot predict at a glance.

That makes for different feeling games I think; and different opportunities for a designer to craft an artistic message or fun entertainment.

Playing Ticket To Ride on the computer (excellent by the way) feels different than most computer games maybe thats why I am playing it more than games designed for a computer.

In my opinion Modern boardgame design is the most innovative field of game design in the world right now. I wonder if they have been spured on to greater creativity because computer games have taken away a lot of their options? Perhaps in the same way that photography took away many options from painting and perhaps helped launch modern art?

I am deep in my beret wearing, wine drinking, kandinsky appreciating phase right now so please forgive the pontificating :)

[Rod Humble]

Originally Posted by Damien Neil

German games tend to present a significantly game-affecting decision every time you move. Furthermore, you can see the effects of these decisions both immediately and in the long term.

Yes! Succinctly put.

[JD]

I want a German game RTS

It's an RTS. And it's made by Germans.

-Julian

P.S.:</pimpage mode> ;)

[Chris Nahr]

But is it a German RTS? :)

Anyway, I completely agree with what Bruce said on the last page. I wanted to post that myself in those eternal RTS dicsussions but couldn't quite figure out how to say it:

Originally Posted by Bruce Geryk

Computer games have so much more potential than boardgames, yet they keep blowing it. Rise of Legends is exhibit 1. When I open the Caylus box, the gameboard is fixed. It’s made out of cardboard and has some artwork on it. Because I’m not insane, I don’t blame the designers for limiting my possibilities in this way. Rise of Legends has no such constraints. Role-playing gamers have complained for years about the inability to permanently alter their environment based on game choices. Here is a strategy game where the game mechanics have been specifically designed to produce different results based on the choices, but the game itself doesn’t reflect them in any tangible way. If I choose a mercantile strategy, why can’t my civilization show that as it develops? If I go all land lore on your ass, can’t the appearance of the game world change? Real-time strategy games have the reputation for requiring fast mouse-clicking. It’s amazing to me that a game which attempts to introduce serious strategic choices built on fundamental game mechanics doesn’t represent this in some way that is obvious to the players. How many bumblebees do I have? I shouldn’t ever be squinting at that number I had to go and enable in the user interface. It’s as though the designers are embarrassed about players having to make choices. Guys, mature game design has already been mastered by Reiner Knizia. It’s your job to extend this, what with the demon art and whatnot.

I'm sick and tired of RTS games that look absolutely beautifully but whose presentation is so near-totally unrelated to the actual state and history of the current game that only an expert like Tom who has memorized 376 different rules and statistics can figure it out! The rest of us have to squint at tiny little numbers in the lower left corner, and are left to puzzle out on our own why we just lost another game.

Elaboration: Building designs are way too similar to each other (RoL is a particularly bad offender with its non-intuitive fantasy theme), and the fact that you usually have to build at least one of each means you have to carefully survey and count them to figure out what a player is actually focusing on. Units are almost always cannon fodder with extremely short lifespans, so the number and type of units present has little correlation to the total production capacity or historical output. Maps are usually small, travel times short, and production output or bonuses usually apply anywhere immediately, so geographic clustering tends not to give any clues either. Terrain features usually don't matter at all -- the actual playground is a primitive 2D maze between impassable mountains, and the pretty 3D appearance is just window dressing.

In other words, the typical current RTS game might as well not have a graphical map at all since it's irrelevant to how the game is played and won. It's only there to turn the player's attention into a resource, by forcing him to rapidly scroll & click around this beautiful but irrelevant map.

[JM]

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

I remember endless arguments about this - wasn't the answer that RTS purchasers are a small hardcore set of multiplayer gamers and a broad pool of single player gamers?

Single-player skirmish vs bots, surely?

[Aeon221]

Its hard to argue with someone saying that improvement would be nice.

So, out of principle:

I disagree!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Bruce has introduced me to Caylus, as he has many other games, and it's great. Many of his points apply to all RTS, though, not just Rise of Legends.

For example, it's almost impossible to tell while you are playing, or even afterwards, why you lose a particular real time strategy session. So much success depends on a combination of resource harvesting, unit building and "special power choosing" and replays only go so far in demonstrating what exactly the other player is doing.

To some extent you can try to mimic what your betters are doing, but in a game with options as numerous as RoL, mimickry will lead to disaster since the right choice isn't always the same.

Conversely, in RTS the turning point is almost always evident at the moment it happens. I remember one AoE3 session with Tom in which I advanced to his city, starting raiding and looting and thought I had the men and forces to keep up the pressure. But, as is his wont, he sent a pack of cavalry around me and hit my economic center. Villagers scattered and/or died. And that was it. The game continued for another five minutes or so, but I could never recover from that and I knew it.

Now how did he have so many horses? No idea. I don't know how he spent all his money. Maybe he pulled them out of his magic beret. So I know when I lost, but not necessarily why. I know that I learn more from talking to him about what to do than I do just by playing over and over, but part of that is because I don't have time for deep or DeepT analysis.

In Caylus, the game can continue with no turning point, like in Bruce's gold-hoarding example. Even in chess, the symbol for a bad move is a question mark, and that's not even added till after the game is complete.

Troy

[SlyFrog]

I think it is a decent minor theme, that is hard pressed to serve as the basis for an entire argument.

Sometimes it is difficult to figure out why I lost. Sometimes that is because the raw data is not there (though it is often in the replays).

Often, however, I know I lost because when I tried to take the neutral city, my opponent let me damage my army on the neutral army and then swept in and destroyed me. Or I went in with a heavy fire and sand army and got beaten up by sun idols. Etc.

Games do not always have perfect information. I believe that most RTSs also use some form of random generator to determine unit damage, starting location, etc. It is therefore interesting to me how often people tend to forget that part of not knowing why you lost may be because you are not seeing the random die rolls that are going on behind the scenes (as a bit of irony, I'll admit I do not know whether this is the case in RoL).

Whereas in the purer german games (which I tend to dislike), die rolls and other random modifiers are often far more limited. Therefore, some of the issue may be the equivalent of asking why you do not know for sure exactly why you lost in Monopoly versus a game of chess.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by SlyFrog

I Therefore, some of the issue may be the equivalent of asking why you do not know for sure exactly why you lost in Monopoly versus a game of chess.

Interesting analogy that cuts to the reason why I think Monopoly is a terrible game, as are many that rely solely on dice rolls.

Troy

[wisefool]

Monopoly is a crap game because there's no real choices. You roll. If you land somewhere, buy it. If you have cash to spend, spend it on building houses within seven spaces of your opponents (so highest chance of return on investment within the same turn.)

Having to bid is interesting, but stupid kids never liked that rule and didn't play with it. Thus the only skill left for a ten year old to try is EMBEZZLING THE BANK.

"I gave you two twenties dude!"

[DeepT]

My analysis was just a discovery of numbers. If we had all the numbers for all the sides, then we could do a real analysis.

I bet Bruce Geryk knew the numbers behind Caylus. A merchants guild gives you X of A, and Jousting gives you Y of B. I do not believe he sat there with some kind of spread sheet calculating strategy, but still he would think about the effects of the numbers.

That is why I found them for Coutl. To bad they only give you a very limited insight unless you have something to compare it against.

The thing is, RTS games really *are* about the numbers. You may not think about it that way, but it is what is really going on. As a player, if I can make you spend more then I spend, and prevent you from making as much as I make, I will win. That is all there is to it. The game is in the details of managing all that.

I would like to see his analysis of playing the Cuotl. I feel they are far to restrictive and that tactics with them are one-dimensional. I have been told by others that they feel the same way. I would like to see if he agrees.

[Jab2565]

I have to agree as well with bruce. One thing that bothers me about Rol's counter system, is that instead of giving you a straight anwser like Bfme 2 where swords beat pike, pike beat cavlary, cavlary beats archer. We get the description, beats small lightly armored units, or beats small units. Or mass air units. Which really is a pain in the ass to try and find the counter before it's too late.

I also would have like to have seen more visual and gameplay choices depending on which route you take(economy,rusher, boomer,etc) I don't mind rushers, if I get a solid defense that I can use to stop it. It boggles my mind from a balance/gameplay point of view, that defenses in Rol cost more then basic units to set up even though they are static.

[BobM]

Originally Posted by pfreak

One thing that bothers me about Rol's counter system, is that instead of giving you a straight anwser like Bfme 2 where swords beat pike, pike beat cavlary, cavlary beats archer. We get the description, beats small lightly armored units, or beats small units. Or mass air units. Which really is a pain in the ass to try and find the counter before it's too late.

I just had a thought. Why not have intelligent tool tips? So when you mouseover a unit, the description of that unit is dependent upon your race and tech level.

So instead of seeing "weak against archers," you'd see "use Quixian Firethrowers against these, or the higher tech Magmamen."

[DanielElliot]

It does that already. The tooltips are always telling me "Best countered with Clockwork Men" or "Best Countered with Sun Jaguars" or whatever, based on the race I'm playing.

[Ferox]

It sounds like Caylus is like other Euros, at least insofar as evolving understanding of the game goes. I've evolved my own Puerto Rico hierarchy through phases that went something like:
Noob player: Corn ROXORS man, it's unbeatable.
Noob+1: Haha! I can beat your corn with my other Monocrop that actually makes money!
Noob+2: Well I can beat that with my tobacco/sugar or corn/coffee approach!
Not-So-Noob: Hey, guys, did you realize you can win by buying buildings? I won with 5 vp from shipping.
Not-So-Noob+1: Well, there are a number of combination buildings whose effects stack together, take my harbor/factory with a 5 crop approach.
Pretty Good Player: Controlling when the game ends based on which strategy I choose is wicked cool.
...

However, I don't see that Euro style choices are better than the standard approach. When playing basketball, it's hard to point to just one point in the game where the Jordan era Chicago Bulls kicked the crap out of your local middle school team, or even when the Bird vs. Johnson era Celtics/Lakers games turned. Even in a game like Paths of Glory or some other point to point card game, unless you do something totally bone headed there is no single action that you can point to that cost you the game, despite the fact they are more euro-like than most wargames. As you add complexity, the ability to point to just one decision that cost you the game decreases. It also adds a bit of cloudyness to decision making.

I think this lack of certainty that a decision was a good one adds something valuable to a game, a kind of tension that is hard to generate by other mechanisms. It also adds longevity to a game, since teasing out which situation a strategy should be used in takes more time. Combined with the inablity to take in the whole of the game state at once caused by complexity, the fog of war makes it difficult to generate "perfect" game plans which ruin games. I'd rather spend my time solving problems than working on executing my strategy perfectly.

[gdunbar]

Originally Posted by wisefool

Monopoly is a crap game because there's no real choices. You roll. If you land somewhere, buy it. If you have cash to spend, spend it on building houses within seven spaces of your opponents (so highest chance of return on investment within the same turn.)

Having to bid is interesting, but stupid kids never liked that rule and didn't play with it. Thus the only skill left for a ten year old to try is EMBEZZLING THE BANK.

"I gave you two twenties dude!"

Reputedly Monopoly, as played by skilled players using the official rules, is a cutthroat game of auctions and trading. Having only played when I was a kid, and never having finished a game, I cannot confirm or deny this reputation. Nor do I really have any desire to try it for myself.

Geoff

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by Ferox

I'd rather spend my time solving problems than working on executing my strategy perfectly.

Yeah, this is why "build orders" really bug me.

I get that games should have sound opening strategies. To belabor the chess point, no one opens with a rook pawn or a knight to the rook rank (file?). The game is about centerboard control, so you move your pawns or knights there.

But if someone tells me "you must have built ten villagers by minute two or MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE!!!" I quickly lose interest in the game. In a way, this is problem solving, but the problem is the game itself, not the situation. So if the puzzle has an answer, what the hell am I doing?

Rise of Nations sort of solved this by admitting that people just start building four or five villagers, so you just started out with them and could immediately get to the barracks/temple/more peon decision.

Troy

[Angrycoder]

Rise of Legends depends on this whole alternate mythology where the Aztecs taught the Russians how to space walk, and Leonardo da Vinci invented Mechwarrior.

That is the quote of the year right there.

[BobM]

Originally Posted by Orpheo

It does that already. The tooltips are always telling me "Best countered with Clockwork Men" or "Best Countered with Sun Jaguars" or whatever, based on the race I'm playing.

So they retroactively put my idea into the game? Those bastards!

[Brooski]

I’m not arguing that computer games and boardgames need to share open mechanics with perfect information. In fact, I prefer games with some random element to the perfect-play Euros that break down into analysis paralysis because everything is open to evaluation. I just think a lot of interesting game design gets buried in computer games that doesn’t need to be, and it ends up hurting the games.

As for build orders, I have no problem with that being a part of the game. Build orders are a part of every strategy game, turn-based or real-time, where you can build things, because some set of orders will be superior to another for a given purpose. The problem is when there is only one such set of orders, because like I said in my wargames article, then you’ve created a puzzle instead of a game.

I feel like Rise of Legends does a decent job of allowing for multiple sets of build orders, at least for the Alin. That may not actually be the case, and if so that’s another strike against it. But if it is, I’d like to see some of those choices reflected in the game presentation itself.

The more complex (and long) a game is, the less any single decision is going to affect the outcome. I just finished losing a PBEM game of Twilight Struggle (by automatic victory in Turn 4 – very embarrassing) yet I can’t point to any particular moment as something that lost me the game. However, as the game progressed, I could see individual turns going against me in specific ways. It wasn’t a shock to me when my opponent sent me an email with “game over” in it.

By contrast, I feel like I’m playing a lot of real-time strategy games almost as solitaire. I’m kept in the dark for a long time, and all of a sudden I’ve lost. I can’t even appreciate how well my opponent did because I have no idea what he did. He just has a lot of guys. If I win, I just see that he doesn’t have enough guys. I have no idea what he was doing with his time. Maybe he was talking on the phone and not even paying attention.

I think that’s a big failing in a strategy game, because games are about interaction and competition (except the scary cooperative ones). Computer games have so many possibilities this way, yet I still end up in the dark. I like watching my score when I get a new city or level up an existing city because I can correlate the score increase to something I did.

There have been a lot of good comments in this thread which I would reply to if I had more time. Lack of certainty is fine. Lack of feedback is not. And since it’s a computer game, the feedback can be really elaborate, so I can’t figure out why it isn’t.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by Brooski

As for build orders, I have no problem with that being a part of the game. Build orders are a part of every strategy game, turn-based or real-time, where you can build things, because some set of orders will be superior to another for a given purpose. The problem is when there is only one such set of orders, because like I said in my wargames article, then you’ve created a puzzle instead of a game.

Right. This is my problem with them. What I build first in a strategy game should be affected by all kinds of things. Who is my opponent? What is on the map that I can see? This is the "given purpose" part. If the right choice is always to go magus/magus/merchant - no matter what - then the cities might as well start that way.

Because then it becomes about hotkey and mouse clicking to get that .5 second edge.

RoL is certainly superior to the Age games in this respect, but I'm not surprised that it is.

For the record, I'm still on the fence between good and great on this game.

Troy

[Alan Au]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

Rise of Nations sort of solved this by admitting that people just start building four or five villagers, so you just started out with them and could immediately get to the barracks/temple/more peon decision.

Yeah, I feel very much the same way about build orders. I mean, sure, the concept of build orders is fine. I'm mostly just bothered by the insane amount of mouse control needed to execute them properly. I guess I really just want a set of buttons at the beginning that automagically execute my starting build-order of choice, maybe up to the first actual decision point of the game.

Of course, taken to a ridiculous extreme, you could save a lot of time by having a "choose strategy" button immediately followed by a "you win/lose" report. I guess it would be the RTS equivalent of rock/paper/scissors encapsulated in a single decision, maybe followed by a nicely scripted battle with lots of neat little unit animations.

- Alan

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Originally Posted by Alan Au

Of course, taken to a ridiculous extreme, you could save a lot of time by having a "choose strategy" button immediately followed by a "you win/lose" report. I guess it would be the RTS equivalent of rock/paper/scissors encapsulated in a single decision, maybe followed by a nicely scripted battle with lots of neat little unit animations.

RTS Progress Quest?

Troy

[Lorini]

Btw, Caylus is out of print yet again according to http://www.riograndegames.com/. Late June now for the reprinting. I like Caylus, but I'm looking forward to Masons and Aton too.

Lorini

EDIT: Right now, you can find Caylus at www.bouldergames.com

[Jab2565]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

Right. This is my problem with them. What I build first in a strategy game should be affected by all kinds of things. Who is my opponent? What is on the map that I can see? This is the "given purpose" part. If the right choice is always to go magus/magus/merchant - no matter what - then the cities might as well start that way.

That's what I want to see in future rts games, that your strategy should never be the same each game. Also a greater focus on the enviroment, such as if a map has alot of mountain areas( such as one of the early vinci missions) then air units should be a pirority over mass land units. I'm seeing that standard build order process starting in Rol, where if I don't build the right number of districts within 2 minutes of the game, I'm going to be rushed or severly out produced.

[Gordon Cameron]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

Interesting analogy that cuts to the reason why I think Monopoly is a terrible game, as are many that rely solely on dice rolls.

Troy

The function of Monopoly isn't to be an interesting game, but to provide an excuse for social interaction.

The higher a degree of randomness there is in a game, and the less skill is required to play it, the more eligible it is for a bunch of buddies to gather round and have a jolly good time chatting with each other over a game board. Talisman is that way too.

If you want a serious game that you can study and improve at, Monopoly or Talisman will obviously not satisfy. But games like that have a purpose.