Starcraft 2: Evolution or Revolution?

So, as the gaming world now knows Starcraft 2 has been announced. It's going to be awfully hard for Blizzard to follow up on the game that was Starcraft, and the stir that it caused in the gaming world. Though nowadays, everyone expects Blizzard's games to rock the world once they're released. The polish and development that goes into Blizzard's games is what has earned Blizzard their place as the game-making kings in the genres they delve into.

So, the question I'll naturally ask is: what will be new about Starcraft 2 and what will stay from Starcraft? What are some of the new elements of strategy in Starcraft 2 that will distinguish it form other RTS's? Homeworld was a ground-breaking title, but Homeworld 2 only really built on and polished the concepts that were established before; it didn't actually add that much new material to the game. With Blizzard, Warcraft 2 was definitely a step up from Warcraft, and Warcraft 3 was a big step up and away from Warcraft 2. There were still grunts and footmen, but the character of the game had changed drastically from one incarnation to the next. Will Starcraft 2 involve careful management of individual unit abilities, as was requisite in Warcraft 3, or is it more a matter of unit choice and production?

About all we have to go on right now is the gameplay video that blizzard has released. So, I'll analyze that in-depth according to my meager faculties!

First off, we do see some of the "signature" old units in play: Terran Marines and Siege Tanks, Zerglings, and Protoss Zealots. Though, even these units have a few new spins on them: the Protoss can charge into battle, the zerglings have a transformation into something akin to a ground-based scourge.

One of the first strategic divisions we see in Starcraft 2 is the difference between "heavy" and "light" units. Some units are bigger or smaller, and some units are more effective against one of those types. This strategic division was already somewhat present in Warcraft 3 with all of the armor types and weapon types, but it doesn't seem as pronounced as it does in Starcraft 2. I personally like this division because it makes early game units viable even in the late game as the enemy rolls out bigger units, as exemplified by the Terran Marines taking down late game Protoss air units.

Another interesting strategic division takes the form of terrain negotiation by ground units. The usefulness of units with this ability seems at least partially contingent on the map being presented: a map with lots of difficult-to-traverse terrain would make these units shine. It also seems that the ability to negate terrain in this manner makes turtling/choke points a less viable means of defending one's base.

The other interesting part of the video in my opinion revolved around unit deployment. It seems that the Protoss ability to warp units into their pylon power grids (and deployable pylon power grids on their transports) adds a unit aspect of battlefield mobility. Likewise, it seems that the Nidus tunnels of the Zerg bring in some interesting new surprise-attack possibilities, along the lines of the GLA holes of CnC Generals repute.

So: we see some new twists on some old features, and some features that other games have pioneered a bit. The newest feature so far that I have experienced takes the form of the terrain negotiation.

So we're looking at more of an evolutionary title than a revolutionary one. But I can see the reasoning behind this: if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The game also has to keep with it's current tournament-competition role and not alter the formula too much. Who knows, maybe there will be some new twists in the weeks to come as Blizzard releases more about the game!

The Importance of Intelligence

"Military Intelligence" has always been something of a misnomer; it's too bad that the Bush administration hasn't been doing itself any favors on refuting that legendary phrase's connotations, especially with that whole WMD-hunt fiasco.

But luckily, in Supreme Commander, finding your opponents' weapons of mass catastrophe is something that anyone can manage! I promise! From day two of playing Supreme Commander, you too can know where everything is! You can vindicate the saying, "Military Intelligence!"

Let's be straight though: intelligence on your opponent wins games. In fact, it's almost impossible to win without it. Intelligence is intimately tied to one precept especially: the element of surprise. Knowing what your opponent is fielding, where your opponent's mass extractors are, where his commander is, and what his defensive capabilities are is of the utmost importance to any game.

Supreme Commander sometimes comes down to some very basic rock-paper-scissors situations: is your opponent building bombers, tanks, or subs? You can try to counter all of your opponent's possible avenues all at once... and end up with a very watered-down defense and a lackluster and slow offense. It's much more efficient to find out what your opponent is sending out and specifically build up to counter it. Why spend resources on anti-air if your opponent is just building tactical missile launchers?

So that's where intelligence comes in, radar snd sonar being the first components of that equation. Simply knowing that there are air units, naval units, or ground units present is the first step to knowing what your strategy should consist of, at least defensively.

A few pointers in regards to these invaluable units: always have your base completely covered in at least one radar bubble; it makes your anti-air much more effective and allows you to defend what is arguably the most important component of your infrastructure; on larger maps, build lots of radar in a perimeter around your base- this effectively increases your ability to anticipate where the enemy is coming from; upgrade your radar and sonar - as the game gets bigger, the range and speed of units increases, so to at least minimally maintain the same amount of effective intelligence, upgrading is key. Also make sure to rebuild/repair/defend threatened radar and sonar stations.

The next components of intelligence gathering comes with "active" intelligence - the intelligence your units gather by spotting other units. In this category we have land scouts, air scouts, and naval scouts (frigates, usually.) These units have the benefit of going outside of your radar bubble and conveying the same, if not more detailed information. Seeing little squares and diamonds in gray is a nice start, but knowing that there is point defense and artillery with a few engineers is better. Active intelligence is essential to any game, at all stages. In the early game, it lets you beat out the "rock paper scissors" conundrum fairly easily, and allows you to locate vulnerable resources and units. Mid-game, it gives you a picture of how quickly your opponent is teching up and where his units are; maybe even what he's preparing for you. Late game, active intelligence will let you find the enemy commander and kill him.

Another handy strategy is to park these mobile intelligence gatherers behind an enemy base, effectively giving you constant passive radar and intelligence on what he's doing.

It's easy to neglect this component of game play; after all, who wants to constantly send out scouts in varying and dynamic waypoints across the map, all the time? It may not be fun organizing the scouting routes, but there is nothing more fun than destroying your opponent's ace in the hole before he can even use it.

There's also the matter of counter-intelligence - depriving your enemy of intelligence on you. The most obvious way of doing this is destroying their radar and scouting units before they can obtain critical data. Tactical missiles and interceptors work wonders on enemy attempts at finding out what you've got. It also is a very formidable form of psychological warfare: there's nothing more terrifying than knowing that looming shape in the distance is coming for you, but not knowing what exactly it is.

The Cybran have a unique position in the counter-intelligence game. Many of their units have the inherent ability to disguise themselves from radar; stealth T3 bombers can really ruin a commander's day. Not to mention that the Monkey Lord, their all-purpose bad ass, can cloak as well. An unexpected T4 unit can really make for an unpleasant day. Perhaps, most importantly, their commander has an active cloak upgrade! In addition, they have mobile stealth generators: moving a formation of ground units in with these mixed in can spare you a lot of harm from tactical missiles and artillery if you play your cards right.

All factions also have stealth generators; on a radar map, all your opponent can generally see is the generator itself, not the critical buildings within its sphere. This drastically reduces the effectiveness of artillery and your opponent's planning.

The main idea behind counter-intelligence, in summation, is preserving the edge of surprise. Intelligence revolves around negating the edge of surprise an enemy might have.

Supreme Commander: It's fun!

The game that has been in vogue for me lately is Supreme Commander. I love it. I never played the original Total Annihilation series, or any of its millions of mods, but the game immediately struck a chord with me after I started playing it.

I'm still rather ambivalent about the single player campaign that was provided. I only made it a few missions in before switching my sights to skirmish maps and multiplayer maps. My main quibble being that I want to have all the units and all of the upgrades available to me from the start so that I can have a greater variety of strategies available to me.

The multiplayer, however, is very robust. I'll be the first to say that it's never the same game twice in a row. The size of the map, the players on the other side, your faction choice, and how you choose to play make it all very dynamic. On the other hand, my online experiences seem to show me two big game winning methods: Tier 1 rushing and Tier 3 Siege Bots/Strategic Bombers. But even then, the games have so many nuances and variations even on those two strategies alone that it's worthwhile.

Supreme Commander, to me, is composed of two very large but equally important parts: the logistics of the battlefield and the tactics involved in an engagement. These two components could really be related to almost any RTS, but Supreme Commander's huge scale puts these in perspective that much better.

The logistical component of the battle rests in managing your economy and having sufficient forces in the right places. Economy can be pretty straight forward at times: have enough mass extractors and power generators to keep units pouring out of your factories. Economy also involves defending those resources to a greater or lesser extent. The other portion of the logistical battle is producing units, and generally lots of them, and making sure that they are in a position to react quickly in a defensive situation or optimally in an offensive manner. An army might as well not exist if you can't put it to good use. Having lots of units coming out of factories is good, but having those units ferry into the back of an enemy base or to a flank is even better! Logistics also involves a bit of intelligence too: you can't position your forces well if you don't know where the enemy is. So, having a good radar/sonar setup is fairly critical, and these two buildings should never be neglected in your infrastructure.

So, you have a ton of units and you have a good idea of where the enemy is or is coming from. The next thing to do, of course, is to bury them in the bodies of your diligently constructed army! Or maybe not. Sending gobs of units in formation at enemies is a good tactic, it provides a huge amount of brute force focused on a given direction.

But there can be so much more to it - a handful of units managed well can crush a much larger force. Example: Player 1 has 65 T1 units, comprised of 30 medium tanks, 25 artillery pieces, and 10 anti air guns. Player 2 has 5 T2 Heavy Tanks, 5 T2 Missile Launchers, and 5 T2 Gunships. Being an aware commander, Player 2 has sent scouts overhead and is aware of Player 1's unit composition, and have managed to keep them in the radar bubble. Player 1 gives the ctrl-click command for his units to move in formation to crush his opponent in one sweeping move. Player 2 might just let them come, thinking that his missile launchers, tanks, and air power will take the day. Maybe, but not without losing practically everything along the way - and whatever Player 1 has left will descend on his mass extractors, defenses, engineers, etc... Player 2, however, has a better idea: he's going to tell his missile launchers to kill all of Player 1's AA, allowing his gunships free reign over the battlefield. In this scenario, he might lose all of his ground units, but he is practically guaranteed to entirely obliterate Player 1's entire force, with gunships intact to wreak some havoc.

This scenario is simplistic, but also representative: a well-managed force of smaller units can destroy a larger force of uncoordinated units very handily.

In Supreme Commander, being good at just the logistics of an operation or just the tactics of a battle can bring a win. Most players fall somewhere between these two points on a line, closer to one or the other. However, being aware of both components of Supreme Commander can make for much earlier, impressive, and deft victories. Making the transition to being good at just one part of the game to being good at both parts of the game marks the difference between an average player and a skilled one.

So, Supreme Commander is a fun game, I'm enjoying it, and probably will continue to enjoy it!

Video Games and I

The first time I played a video game, that I can recall, would have been in 1989. I was about four years old then, I think. My brother and I found a brand-new NES in our basement. My dad probably put it there intending to give it as a gift for my birthday or Christmas. But, as we all well know, four-year-olds lose all sense of patience and propriety when presents are preemptively discovered.

It was Super Mario Brothers and Duck Hunt for us from then on out. My dad set up a room for us in our basement very shortly after we found the NES, and it was in that room for the next eight or so years that we played all of the "classics."

The first PC games I can remember playing (besides some Dinosaur coloring educational software) were Railroad Tycoon and Falcon: The F-16 Flight Simulator. I could sit and lay railroad tracks across the U.S. and Europe for hours before taking a break to crash my F-16 into the landscape over and over again.

So that's my attempt at an introduction. Needless to say, my tastes have changed a great deal since the tender days of Kindergarten. I spend most of my time playing games in the RTS, RPG, or FPS categories nowadays. Some strategy games and some simulation games make into the lineup these days too. I want to try to put up replays when I'm able to, but I mostly just want to reflect on games that I'm playing and put out some of my strategies for the world to see.