Help a strategy game idiot

[nlanza]

I've been thinking about this for a while, but bahimiron's JRPG thread reminded me:

I am convinced I'm basically the worst strategy game player ever.

This is a problem, 'cause I love the idea of strategy games. I'll happily listen to people talk about strategy games (Three Moves Ahead, for example), and I'll often buy them because they sound so great.

And then when I actually play them... I kinda suck at them, and it's not really much fun. I'll get bogged down in details and get overwhelmed and then frustrated when the game slips out of control.

What am I missing? What's a good crash course for learning the right kind of patience and tactics I'll need to actually get something out of these games?

Note that I'm mostly talking about turn-based stuff here, and I'm more into Civ-type, diplomacy, city-building, or trading games than grognard-y wargaming.

[FoRmaT]

I'm in the same boat. Love them but suck at them.

[nixon66]

Yay, I'm not the only one! I could read AAR's and that wonderful GalCiv2 play report that was done, but for the life of me I suck at these games. I do fine at board games requiring a bit of strategy, but when it comes to turn based strategy, RTS or civ-type ones I do okay, just always hit a wall!

Save us grognardy gamers, you are our only hope.

[datter]

Same boat here, strategy-stunted and not sure why that is because I want to like them. Actually, it's not that I'm bad at them as much as it's the fact that I just can't get into them.

I've been a die hard HoI "tryer" since it's inception but somehow none of them have ever got out of the driveway. The very thought of what those games are/can be strikes me with the urge to play. Nations, armies, continents and grand plans of world domination through technology development and mindful building of ones resources. It sounds perfect, until I actually start up the game find myself faced with the stark reality of it all. My brain frosts over with a thin icing of malaise, that I have to fight to scrape off before I can even begin to make any progress in figuring things out.

It's around that point that I start to feel like these games are more work than play, and that if I could get up the Pike's Peak Learning Curve™ I might find a plateau of enjoyment somewhere just below the cloud layer. The problem with this is that I already have a job, and when given some free time I really don't want to do more work. It's from this, that the learning curve goes unclimbed and I just slap about the base camp not really ever getting anything out of the experience.

I want to climb up there, but I just haven't got the energy anymore.

[Sarkus]

Perhaps you are playing the wrong type of strategy games? While they are a group, there are different types. For example, I don't like traditional RTS style strategy games. I've tried many and they don't work for me so I've stopped buying them. But there are other strategy games that aren't of that type that I really enjoy.

Also, the more complicated ones have a learning curve that is steeper then what most games these days have. I've played most Paradox games, and each one requires a few hours before I feel like I have a real idea of what is going on. That may not be the kind of work you are willing to put in to have fun.

[Cory]

Can I join this club? I love the idea of many (especially grand) strategy games, but playing them is often more chore than fun.

[Pogue Mahone]

Dude, we should start a club. I haven't played a strategy game I really enjoyed and felt I did well at since Panzer General. I really don't have the head for maintaining an entire army and having them work together well to achieve my objectives. And don't even get me started on RTSs, those are as alien to me as, you know, aliens.

But I still try them now and then. I completely suck at the Civ games, but kind of enjoyed the Civ Revolutions game on the Xbox for a while. I think I need to dig that one out again.

[FoRmaT]

I so love the atmosphere of StarCraft, but on like ten tries I've never even made it furter than the first Zerg rush.

I never get the right balance between offense and defense, and I do everything with wrong timing.

[nlanza]

Originally Posted by Sarkus

Perhaps you are playing the wrong type of strategy games? While they are a group, there are different types. For example, I don't like traditional RTS style strategy games. I've tried many and they don't work for me so I've stopped buying them. But there are other strategy games that aren't of that type that I really enjoy.

Also, the more complicated ones have a learning curve that is steeper then what most games these days have. I've played most Paradox games, and each one requires a few hours before I feel like I have a real idea of what is going on. That may not be the kind of work you are willing to put in to have fun.

I think this is part of it. I've lost track of how many hours I put into various iterations of SimCity, and I'll play Strategery (think Dice Wars) on my phone for hours, so there are clearly some strategy games that'll grab me.

It may be a learning curve & patience thing, you're right.

But still, I'm kinda captivated by the grand scope of some of the more complicated games and just wish I had the patience for them.

[Jarmo]

I think one solution could be if you could get a friend play a strategy game with you (at the same computer) and explain the finer points to you. After you learn to play one strategy game, the rest are easier. It's a certain mindset you need to get ahead in one of them. It's more difficult to arrive at by yourself than by getting mentoring from a more experienced player. I'm certain you would pick some pointers on how to proceed with this kind of game from just watching someone play and asking them questions.

It would probably be best to pick a game with a setting that is especially interesting to you. It would help you to keep playing through the period of frustration you describe.

[nlanza]

Originally Posted by Jarmo

I think one solution could be if you could get a friend play a strategy game with you (at the same computer) and explain the finer points to you. After you learn to play one strategy game, the rest are easier. It's a certain mindset you need to get ahead in one of them. It's more difficult to arrive at by yourself than by getting mentoring from a more experienced player. I'm certain you would pick some pointers on how to proceed with this kind of game from just watching someone play and asking them questions.

That's really not a bad idea at all. Most of my gaming buddies are RPG dorks, but I'm sure if I ask around one of them will have a secret shameful strategy habit.

Originally Posted by Jarmo

It would probably be best to pick a game with a setting that is especially interesting to you. It would help you to keep playing through the period of frustration you describe.

Yeah, I'm thinking I may need to cave and grab the PC version of Dawn of Discovery, 'cause the setting fascinates me. I grabbed the Wii version on the theory that I might be able to talk my wife into trying the co-op, but haven't had time to try it yet.

Thanks for the tips.

Also, apparently the rest of us will need to form a support group or something.

[Disconnected]

Originally Posted by nlanza

But still, I'm kinda captivated by the grand scope of some of the more complicated games and just wish I had the patience for them.

I think the trick is to throw away a weekend on learning how one of them works, and then just play that one game for the next couple of years. That's what I do.

If you lack strategy dork friends, you could always try to ask someone to do an AAR/explain how everything works thing for whatever game you're interested in. I could probably be persuaded to do something like that for Armageddon Empires, GalCiv2, Dominions 3 or Blood Bowl - if you don't mind small, weekly instalments (I have one of those pesky life things too).

[Rorschach]

Originally Posted by Jarmo

I think one solution could be if you could get a friend play a strategy game with you (at the same computer) and explain the finer points to you.

If you don't have anyone locally try a compstomp multiplayer game with some voice chat enabled like Skype or Vent.

[JM]

I'm trying to get into Armageddon Empires. My head hurts.

[nlanza]

Originally Posted by Disconnected

I think the trick is to throw away a weekend on learning how one of them works, and then just play that one game for the next couple of years. That's what I do.

See, that's part of the problem -- patience. I'm cool with losing a game if I know why I lost, but with a lot of strategy games I end up in this pattern where I just keep losing and don't know quite what I did wrong. After a while, the big pile of backlog games looks too tempting and I just give up.

I think the key may actually just be learning how to get more out of losing.

Originally Posted by Disconnected

If you lack strategy dork friends, you could always try to ask someone to do an AAR/explain how everything works thing for whatever game you're interested in. I could probably be persuaded to do something like that for Armageddon Empires, GalCiv2, Dominions 3 or Blood Bowl - if you don't mind small, weekly instalments (I have one of those pesky life things too).

This would actually be pretty cool, no matter what the game is. AAR / explanation posts are a good read -- even if they end up not teaching me a ton, they'll still be fun to follow along.

[Pogo]

If you're talking about RTS games I have one word for you... hotkeys.

[kerzain]

I do okay at strategy games, depending on the game. I suck at Age of Empires because all I do is sit around building walls and cities (placed for aesthetic appeal)as if it were a Sim City/Rollercoaster Tycoon game, I pretty much only create units to stand around in formation and look cool around my town. Then I get wiped out because I only bought upgrades that add to my town and people cosmetically.

I do fine at turn based games, but only for certain types of victory conditions. I do great with Diplomatic or Culture or Wonder type victories (CivIV or GalCivII for example), but I am the worst military strategist this side of the screen, so I normally have to talk or buy my way out of a fight. In games like Warlords III, yea I'm toast. Although I do great at King's Bounty and have no idea why.

I can not, will not, will never, ever be able to compete in RTS games against real opponents though. I thought I was totally bad-ass at WarCraft III, until I played online. Then I logged off and cried myself to sleep.

[datter]

Originally Posted by Pogue Mahone

Dude, we should start a club. I haven't played a strategy game I really enjoyed and felt I did well at since Panzer General. I really don't have the head for maintaining an entire army and having them work together well to achieve my objectives. And don't even get me started on RTSs, those are as alien to me as, you know, aliens.

But I still try them now and then. I completely suck at the Civ games, but kind of enjoyed the Civ Revolutions game on the Xbox for a while. I think I need to dig that one out again.

See Civilization is the line for me. I understand Civ (enough) and can play well (enough) to muck away a few hours and at least know why (more or less) France of all places handed me my ass on a fancy le' platter. I admit to not necessarily knowing the finer points of the game, but I know enough that I can at least fake it and have fun. You can't fake a damned thing with Hearts of Iron, at all. Civ to HoI is a comic book compared to the national archives. There's just no way you can wander haphazardly through a game of HoI with my Civilization-level of hack-involvement and a) get anywhere and b) enjoy it. I've tried several times, it just doesn't work. Hence, the necessity for clambering up that learning curve o' doom that so haunts my soul.

I like the idea of having someone walk you through it and I like the idea of a series of AAR's geared towards getting new players up to speed even more (ie - someone do that for HoI3 please). That sort of thing might be what it takes to shove my lazy ass up the curve these games involve.

Still, as much as I want to like titles like HoI, I think there is a definite possibility that they are just not for me. I want to like healthy eating and exercise too, but I don't.

[Jarmo]

Originally Posted by JM

I'm trying to get into Armageddon Empires. My head hurts.

It's a really easy game compared to Blood Bowl. Just read the manual. The UI sucks, but the game is gold. I'd pay handsomely for a multiplayer version.

[FoRmaT]

Of all the RTS games I've ever played, I think I did best in Total Annihilation. Probably because you could rapidly replace broken units. Man, I loved that game.

[Naeblis]

So... are you sucking in Command & Conquer? Civilization? Combat Mission? Galactic Civilizations 2? Hearts of Iron?

I mean, the strategy genre is so big and diverse that you have to detail more what's the problem.

[schurem]

I found that climbing steep learning curves has become way harder for me than it used to be. When i was like 17, i could figure something like civ out just by dicking around with it a little for an hour or so. Now, nearing 40, it takes a determined effort of days to get my head around things, and some games are just too steep altogether (X3)

[Naeblis]

Agh, i remember X3. I left that after 5 mins. Without tutorial, interactive guide, smooth learning curve, just nothing.

[JMR]

OMG

OMG

OMG

It's such a relief to know I'm not alone in wanting to understand, enjoy, and excel at turn based strategy games. My first introduction was Civ 2 which I bought after reading glowing reviews in CGW but my pre install anticipation quickly turned to frustration and ultimately neglect after I failed to get it. I eventually bought 2 friggin Prima strategy guides to help clarify some misunderstandings of game mechanics, assist in my strategery in defeating the Chieftan AI so that I could later move on to Prince. These were somewhat helpful and I was able to eventually beat the AI at Prince but those victories were not gratifying as by the time I reached the late mid period I just clicked to end my turns to get it over with. In those late eras I felt overwhelmed and bored with the tedioustask of managing so many units and cities that invariably my games denigrated into click to end turn fests just to reach the end game screen.

Of course I still had an underlying desire to conquer the genera with purchases of MOO2, Alpha Centauri, and much later, Gal Civ 2, but like Civ 2 I felt befuddled and overwhelmed that those games ended up having short lives on my drive. I soooo want to master these kinds of games, but like my struggles with math, I just feel like my brain isn't wired for the 4X genera.

I'm thinking a QT3 get together is in order where we can gather 'round and admire the grognards as they sip their port and stroke their beards during a game of HoI 3. Ok, maybe not that, but perhaps a beard can upload a newbie playthough on YouTube instead.

[kerzain]

Oh I forgot to mention the strategy game I just can not figure out no matter how many video, help guides or anything else I use to for help: Sword of the Stars... I just can't wrap my head around this one. I never know how well I'm doing until I'm dead.

[datter]

Originally Posted by kerzain

I never know how well I'm doing until I'm dead.

That sounds like life in general.

[Warning]

I also suck at strategy games yet I keep buying them for some reason. I think it's because I used to be The Master at Spaceward Ho! on the Macintosh back in 1992 and now I think I can handle anything.

It doesn't matter if it's turn-based or real-time, me vs. AI or vs. another person. I'll think I'm doing great building my base, upgrading my tech, recruiting units and then the other player swoops in with a turbogattlinglasermechasingularitypitchforkshotgun and all my units are 3rd-graders with rubber bands and sticks.

[marxeil]

I just finished a 50 turn session of SOTS. Its my 3rd or 4th try as in each of the former games I made some idiot mistakes and had to start over. Now I have a decent grasp of the basic game mechanics and can somehow manage the planets and fleets, but its clear to me that I'm doing a terrible job. Each turn presents multiple choices - What should I research next? How much to invest in research? What should I design? What should I build? How much should I build? How to allocate ships to fleets? Where to send each fleet? and so on and so forth.
I am not bitching about SOTS, its a marvelous piece of software for letting me do all these things. The problem is with me. I can't see how all these decisions combine together to help me achieve my goals.

Eventually I either lose badly, or win but realize that this is due to the AIs shortcoming then my skills and give up.

I guess not everyone can be a master mind capable of orchestrating world domination.

[Jasper Phillips]

There are two main angles to bootstrapping yourself up:

1) Watch better people play, or better, play against them. This probably needs to be done outside of computer games, as game AI (mostly) isn't good, doesn't adapt, and can't talk to you about what it did afterwards. I did get some good mileage working my wife up to Monarch/Emperor in Civ4 while playing hotseat though.

2) You have to be a glutton for punishment. It's not that you should feel some need to win, just that losing makes you want to come back for more. The people you want to learn from are all going to be better than you, and you are going to lose a lot while you improve. Some people want the secret to "start winning", but it simply doesn't work that way -- it's more like learning about losing, and then how to make sure it happens to the other guy.


Picking up something that people actually play competitively, like Go, is probably your best bet. If you're not willing to go so far, well, then you're probably stuck at your current skill level.

Also, it's cliche, but it might help to read some books along the lines of "Art of War".

[malkav11]

I'm fine with the Civ games and their close compatriots. I don't play at much more than the first couple difficulties, but I don't care. I have no desire to have mad skillz or be multiplayer competitive. I just want to extend my unholy dominion over the whole world and nuke some people. And I've managed that just fine in all of those.

What's throwing me are a) Dominions 3, b) the Total War games, and c) Blood Bowl.

(Armageddon Empires, I had to have some patient assistance and read a few AARs to figure out what was going on, but after that I was fine - I play CCGs, after all.)

The first two it's the same basic issue: I have all these units, but I don't know what to do with them. I don't have this problem in Civ games because they have all of like two stats sometimes and maybe a special ability or two. But in Dominions, any given civilization is capable of turning out at least 10 or 15 unit types even before they start summoning, and they have like 10 stats plus several specials and while I sorta kinda grasp what the stats mean that doesn't translate into my understanding what to build when, how to compose my army, or what sort of tactics to script. In Total War it's less number of unit paralysis as I don't actually understand the tactical implications of their stats. But the result that I don't know what to build when, how to compose my army, or what tactics to use in the real time combat is pretty much the same.

Blood Bowl, I think I just don't understand the overall strategy of the game. I know to minimize risk, and I know what the stats mean, and I know what my goal, ultimately, is. But I'm just not really clear on why I would use some formations over others, how to deal with any given situation, etc. I won once, but it seems to have been as much luck as anything else. It probably doesn't help that I hate real-life sports and have no understanding whatsoever of football or rugby or anything like that that Blood Bowl might draw on.

Paradox's games also intimidate me, but they have traditionally been kind of obtuse, so I'm not ashamed of that.