Soo now go to play [AT WAR]
And then gome back and give us a defenition about the differents between ATWAR and WARLICHT.

I like to play the most strategy game, soo tell us; wich is most strategy?

Chess IS a strategy game. The strategic aspect of the game is just based on foresight. In order to win at chess, you must use foresight to analyze the situation and then implement a strategy based on your findings.

All "strategy" games are based in foresight. The very nature of strategy requires foresight.

A "foresight" based game would not be a game. That would be just someone sitting around analyzing the future. "Strategy" is the implementation of foresight and forethought.

Forsight+Action=Strategy

PS I still enjoyed the article a lot, Genghis.

Edited 5/2/2016 20:55:02

I don't mind Genghis writing theorems about the game without being a top player. His perspective is valid on a general basis. Anyone who understands the generalized rulings of the game can talk about the theory. I can theorize good item builds for League purely from a mathematical standpoint without being a top ranked player. So don't cast away the post just because it's Genghis who wrote it. There's interesting points.

This might be a semantic argument, but chess already makes the distinction between 'strategy' and 'tactics'.

Strategy is long-term, intuitive, and impossible to calculate. The Warlight equivalent is things like choosing your territories and choosing which direction to expand.

Tactics are short-term, forcing, and calculable. The Warlight equivalent is things like placing x units to counter the opponents' y units and z income or moving across an opponents territory to generate new attacking options. Tactics are more prevalent in Small Earth than in MME.

Foresight isn't a term I hear used in strategy games and, as I would interpret it, implies an incomplete information game (Stratego/Warlight) and the associated luck/guessing aspect as opposed to a complete information game (chess/checkers/Go) where there is no luck whatsoever.

Thanks Kenny, old buddy old pal.

Thanks Grover, guy I know.

I mentioned that Foresight does not necessarily imply it's not strategic, it's when a game relies on the aspect of foresight above other aspects that it becomes less strategic in general and more foresight-based.

For example, another aspect in strategy is risk management, and I think there's an argument to be made for General Management. For example, you want to build more papers in your company. You tell your employees to produce more papers. It's not necessarily foresight, it's not risk management. It's a general management. It is technically strategic, because your overall goal is to build papers.

I think this idea of General Management is also an important distinction between what I am calling Strategy and what I am calling Foresight. The nature of managing subservients for the goal.

You could argue that this is seen in chess, but when you move a pawn, it is not necessarily that you need to move that pawn there as part of the overall goal, it is more likely than not a reactionary move to your opponent also moving a piece of theirs, thus it could be considered a Foresight-based move, rather a General Management-based move.

A pure General Management-based move would be seeking the Scientific Victory in Civ 5, thus, you decide to build spaceship parts. There is foresight to be had from this, for example, you could build the parts in specific cities and build specific parts in specific cities to minimize the number of necessary turns, but the nature of purely giving out instruction for the goal is an important distinction.

Strategy is your largest set. All else is within, like foresight, planning, feedback, negotiation, calculation, adaptation, risk/reward, etc., which intersect each other within the all-encompassing strategy. Any information you get informs your strategy.

If you haven't heard of OODA loops, you might like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

I think, as graemes said, that the concepts that you are presenting might be the difference between a tactical move and a strategic move. The reactionary move in chess would be a tactical reaction to a move that your opponent made. The "General Management" moves where you attempt to coordinate your pieces to end the game is your overall strategy. Both must be based in foresight and risk management.

Edited 5/2/2016 22:01:14

I think some people confuse 2 mentioned terms only, because they view strategy very narrowly. Most players think that in warlight picking certain moves is a strategy, however most experienced players know that the real strategy is actually picking specific moves a certain percentage of the time. What I mean by that is if you view warlight in a similar way to poker, you won't bother with "foresight", you'll just anticipate the outcomes of multiple moves and your strategy will be to mix certain types of moves. It might not be as apparent during the game, but during the picking stage it is more than evident. Also if you want to discuss strategy and "strategic games", I heavily recommend game theory, where the definition is very wide and you wouldn't discern games like warlight from games like chess. The only difference would be the type of strategy you are looking for and in practise how you search for them.

2indepth4me