Current Events > You know what's always bothered me about strategy games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If certain formations have certain strengths, why does the game have to artificially give them these strengths?

Circle formation! +2 defense!

Or did the soldiers in ancient times actually see a floating "+2 defense" when they stood in a circle, and suddenly if they got stabbed they would take less damage?
---

yes
---

Advanced Wars suck dude.
---

Defensive formations are an actual thing. Giving it +defense in the game is just an abstract way of illustrating that
---

RNG bothers me more in strategy games. I mean you can argue formation is supposed to minimize weakness in armor or some bullshit like that, but where's the strategy in random crits and misses?
---

I hated the movement system in the Fire Emblem games

*Sets up a front line of melee fighters to protect the ranged back line*
*Opponent runs right past front line anyways since there's no sort of unit collision*

DevsBro posted...

If certain formations have certain strengths, why does the game have to artificially give them these strengths?

Because that is how games work?

>.>
---

I'm aware of that.

But like I said if that's the case, why do they have to artificially give them those strengths. If standing people in a circle has some defensive benefit, then wouldn't standing fake people in a circle do the same thing? There's nothing in human biology that says "hey we're in a circle, so I'll decide not to die until I get stabbed twice instead of just once!"

Like, look, I dunno how any of this works but let me make up an example. Suppose the circle formation is good defensively because nobody can get behind you. Wouldn't nobody be able to get behind your dudes in the strategy game? Do you have to +2 defense when the logic naturally applies anyway?
---

DevsBro posted...

did the soldiers in ancient times actually see a floating "+2 defense" when they stood in a circle, and suddenly if they got stabbed they would take less damage?

We even see this in modern day with soldiers prone, adjacent to walls

Rexdragon125 posted...

I hated the movement system in the Fire Emblem games

*Sets up a front line of melee fighters to protect the ranged back line*
*Opponent runs right past front line anyways since there's no sort of unit collision*

Yeah. Strategy games that feature Zone of Control mechanics I find are more enjoyable.
---

Rexdragon125 posted...

I hated the movement system in the Fire Emblem games

*Sets up a front line of melee fighters to protect the ranged back line*
*Opponent runs right past front line anyways since there's no sort of unit collision*

fire emblem totally has unit collision, what it doesn't have is any sorts of zone control mechanic

if you want to block an enemy from passing you need to put 1 unit for each empty space you want to block
---

Giving benefits to certain formations makes sense if the game mechanics can't properly present why those formations were historically used. You could make an argument that the game should just let new formations based off of its current mechanics be developed, or to create rules that do allow it to portray the effectiveness of formations properly.

It's actually why I kinda like the Total War games. If I recall, they don't give specific bonuses, but the way cavalry works, the way pikemen work, the way archers work, you'd use them rather similarly to how they were used in real life.
---