An argument for Rock Paper Scissors

Blasphemy you say. Hear me out, and please don't reply if haven't actually considered the points I want to make.



This will be the first part in a small series on RTS game theory. The other parts I'm sure will cause much disagreement, but we'll get to them later.



1. An argument for Rock Paper Scissors

2. An argument for armor systems

3. An argument for micromanagement



In this part, I will define Rock Paper Scissors and explain why it is crucial to any RTS game. I don't expect this post to be contentious, as long as people understand how I have defined RPS. Please keep the discussion to this post and not on the future parts.



I've seen "Rock Paper Scissors" demonized a lot, but no one has explicitly defined the term, so I'd like to put forth my own definition. If you disagree on something in this post, please provide your own definition, so we can make sure everyone is talking about the same thing.



Rock Paper Scissors: Given two armies of different unit types, both with an equal investment of resources, an army of one type will defeat an army of the other type by a substantial margin.



That's it really. I don't place any restrictions on how many unit types there are, how many other types a given type can defeat, or how unit types emerge from the game rules. I include buildings in my definition of a unit. I don't necessarily mean that some types do differential damage to other types; on this point I differ from others on this forum, so let me say it again.



To me, Rock Paper Scissors doesn't automatically mean one unit does more inherent damage to another.



Now let me walk through my logic of why Rock Paper Scissors is obligatory for a strategically-interesting RTS game.



First, it doesn't make sense to have every unit type equally effective against every other unit type. If that were the case, then there'd be no reason to build one unit over another. You could still have strategy in terms of army movement and territory prioritization, but combat would be bland, and the game wouldn't be particularly fun.



So we need at least two unit types to make sure more than one unit gets built. Yet if Type A defeats Type B given equal army costs, no one would ever build Type B, and we're back to the original problem.



Thus we need at least three unit types to ensure the production of multiple units. Type A defeats Type B, Type B defeats Type C, and Type C defeats Type A. Now we've got Rock Paper Scissors. Popular opinion on the forum suggests this is bad, but let's define our unit types and see what happens.



Type A = Stationary defense structure

Type B = Generic combat unit

Type C = Artillery



Stationary defense structures are typically excellent against generic combat units, while artillery is great at taking out defensive structures. To stop artillery from bombarding your defenses, you need some generic combat units to slay the artillery. This setup is the very epitome of Rock Paper Scissors, but it's also the central dogma of every RTS, so I hope no one finds it contentious.



To summarize, Rock Paper Scissors must exist if you want to encourage mixed armies, and three unit types are required to do it. Again, I haven't placed any restrictions on how Rock Paper Scissors comes about from the gameplay rules.



There's still a problem with this theoretical RTS I am trying to construct. With only three unit types, there still isn't a whole lot of combat flavor. A little game theory will show that you need to build at least two unit types, but that doesn't leave much room for diversification. You will always get offensive armies fighting defensive armies. Additionally, it doesn't matter which army mix you build, since your offensive army will be equally effective against an opponent's offensive or defensive army. In a sense, we've traded the discussion on unit types for a discussion on army mixes. For the same reasons already discussed, we need at least three different effective army mixes. In other words, to make combat flavorful and diverse, you need many more unit types. Only then will you get other RTS trademarks like scouting and deception.



I hope people consider this point and that Rock Paper Scissors is given a little more credit. To some extent I'm arguing semantics in this post, but I think the points are often ignored on these forums.



Flame on.|||I prefer ROCK- BIGGER ROCK- BIGGEST ROCK





Also, using rock paper scissors will automatically make any game a clone of every other RTS game!|||BLASPHEMY|||HUH WHAT?



You think we antiarmor system people automatically think RPS is bad(in your definition which is quite a broad one, in which some unit types are better against others and weaker against some). We don't say so. We think armor types make the game bland, abstracts/simplifies the game, and is generally a copout in game design.



Ok we want this and this unit to beat this unit. Instead of designing/balancing how you do this, instead we just give unit A a bonus against unit B and only against unit B.|||Lifekatana|||Yeah I guess you may need rock paper sissors if your not creative enough to create gameplay depth through simulation... Or your oh so cheap and lazy to keep reusing tired game dynamics.







Rock paper sissors is a ******* disease that needs to go. Not make a come back.



Use reasoning at WHY these units are more effective against the others. Like melee units blocking arrows with their shields effectively to close the distance. Etc etc|||Someone clearly did not read the post.|||I dont need to read past 'rock paper sissors must exist for mixed' because thats a fuckin load of ****. Through weapon projectile speeds, weapon types, how they operate, what ranges they have, as long as there is good diversity with that angle you can encouage the use of multiple units, maybe not in the same group, but pushing elsewhere.



We need to go back to the time when EVERYTHING would try to shoot at anything, **** arbitrary limitations. I want big berthas shooting down peepers, with base defences actually assisting aa defences destroy gunships... Maybe then people would be more apt to build a full range of units.|||Idiosyncratic|||Idiosyncratic|||Idiosyncratic|||Hehehe, I think it's funny how angry some are getting at AngryZealot despite the fact that he said nothing I found provocative. Just read the post through and through, guys! He didn't say "SupCom2 needs more RPS and arbitrary armor types," he said "SupCom2 already has RPS in the form of differing attack styles." If that makes any sense.|||FunkyKong|||Idiosyncratic|||the only thing that armour types add to a game is ease of balance.|||FieryBalrog|||i see no reason why supcom couldn't have been balanced around



t1 - speed

t2 - range

t3 - HP



armour types make RTS games more about which units you buy, less about how you use them.|||Idiosyncratic|||FieryBalrog|||Nanoshielding was damn near essential in TA to play a decent game.|||While I don't mind armor stats (as in HP: 100 Damage: 30 Armor: 10) I'd prefer that we didn't use bonus percentage in attacks (as in archer does 10% more damage to infantry) because that makes battles into massive click fests where you have to specifically target certain units for your guys to be even remotely effective.



However, even in a percentage based system, it wouldn't be too bad if units auto targeted enemies that they do well against.|||Rock-paper-scissors implies that unit A >>> unit B >>> unit C >>> Unit A. Always. Which is fine in some cases, but i'd much rather prefer a "Soft RPS" system where Unit A >= unit B >= unit C >= unit A.



i.e. Aramon & Veruna Catapults are easy targets for any other ranged unit or fast melee unit. however, given enough line of sight and terrain, catapults can devastate massive armies of superior units. That to me is soft RPS because catapults (paper) can somtimes be used to kill mounted units (Scissors).



its like artillery taking out a group of landed t3 gunships.



The only time i'm okay with "hard" counters is with fighters >> other aircraft, sub-hunters >> boats & subs (most of the time anyway), and that's about it i guess. any hard counter that makes sense due to weaponry, or other movement restrictions.|||AngryZealot|||re1wind|||Idiosyncratic