Imo maps are rarely talked about simply because they are hard to quantify, contrary to settings. You need graph theory to quantify them, and there are few people on the site who are versed in that.

---> Where does the word strategic originate from?

The word "strategic" has its origins in the Greek word "strategos," which means "general." "Strategos" itself is derived from two words: "stratos" meaning "army" and "ago" meaning "to lead" or "I lead." So, at its core, "strategos" pertains to someone who leads an army or, more broadly, someone who makes military plans. Over time, the word evolved to refer not only to military planning but also to planning in general, especially in business and other fields. The term "strategy" thus means "the art of the general" or "the art of planning." From "strategy," we get the adjective "strategic," which describes something related to or characterized by strategy.

---> So if we were to categorize games, or playstyles of a specific game, as strategic and non-strategic, how would you define that?

When categorizing games or playstyles as "strategic" versus "non-strategic," one must consider the elements and dynamics that characterize each category. Here's a general distinction:

Strategic Games or Playstyles:

Planning Ahead: These games require players to think multiple steps in advance, anticipating not just their next move, but several moves ahead.

Decision Making: Players face meaningful choices that can significantly impact the outcome of the game. Often, these decisions come with trade-offs.

Resource Management: Many strategic games involve the management of limited resources, whether they be pieces on a board, units in a video game, or cards in a deck.

Adaptability: A hallmark of strategic play is the ability to adjust one's approach based on the unfolding game situation or the actions of opponents.

Long-term Goal Orientation: Players often need to pursue longer-term objectives, even if it means sacrificing short-term gains.

Examples: Chess, where each move affects the overall board state and future moves; strategy video games like "Civilization" or "StarCraft"; and certain styles of playing card games like Magic: The Gathering where deck-building and in-game decisions greatly influence outcomes.

Non-strategic Games or Playstyles:

Immediate Reaction: These games often focus on the immediate moment, without much emphasis on long-term consequences. The "here and now" is what's most important.

Chance: Luck can play a more prominent role, with outcomes often being influenced by random events or draws.

Repetitive Actions: The gameplay might involve repeating the same action without much variation.

Simpler Decision Trees: Choices, if present, are often more straightforward with less profound implications on the game's outcome.

Short-term Focus: The primary goal might be achieving a specific, immediate task rather than pursuing a broader, longer-term strategy.

Examples: Many arcade games like "Pac-Man" where the primary goal is immediate survival and point collection; certain casual mobile games; and games like "Candy Land" where outcomes are largely dictated by card draws.

That said, many games contain a blend of strategic and non-strategic elements, and player preference can further blur these lines. Some players might approach a typically non-strategic game with a strategic mindset, while others might play a strategic game in a more casual or non-strategic manner. The categorization can be somewhat subjective based on the nuances of each game and the playstyle of the individual.

---> By GPT-4, 18 Oct 2023

I like this discussion. I like to believe in Beeps definition.
> A template is strategic if the better player wins more often.

However... it is not as simple I fear. I think many templates are strategic enough to distinguish a very good player from a very bad player. But if players are closer together in the skill level, what then?

My conclusion is there are no strategic and unstrategic templates. Only more strategic and less strategic templates.

But how strategic a template must be in order to be strategic enough? And what are the variables?

I don't know.

Can it also change? Can a strategic template become less strategic, if the ceiling of strategic play on a template is reached? Like: is MME now less strategic than 5 years ago, because the elite player kind of mastered this template by now. I think it can.

But that would mean what is less strategic for elite players could still be more strategic for mediocore players, right?

Edited 10/18/2023 22:02:07

@Symétrie Photonique

Guess we found said elitist. Also look up the word disingenuous you are using it wrong.

Nice reply. Probably bait but I'll take it. Also, I am using the word disingenuous properly thank you very much. I think you missed my point. It isn't so much a critique of the templates themselves but of their selection in CL. Take MME MA LD for example. It was an MTL template IIRC. It's not bad per se. I just don't think there are other templates that deserved to feature more than it.

MME MA LD is an interesting example because, in my opinion (you can disagree with it if you like), it takes 3 ideas (LD, MA, and the MME map) and tries to combine it into a single template. I think it comes short of being as good as the standard examples of any of these ideas (not as good as Turkey LD, Bork, or Strat MME)... but it is not unplayable.

The greater issue is that there are a lack of diversity in the template choices anyway. And then people complain over certain template selections - and they have a point. Their argument is not so much that the templates are unorthodox. It is that they are worse versions of previous templates which all cover the same ideas. We essentially are playing variants of the same few themes. I don't think I have ever played a heavy or complete fog template, for example. I find it unlikely that there are no possible avenues for a fairly "strategic" template using those settings. The only no-split template I've ever heard of is Macedonia which in and of itself is groundbreaking but perhaps we could do better. Why has no one come up with anything else? Instead someone decides to make yet another INSS template and we pat ourselves on the back when it is selected for CL because it is new when it is just a variant of the same theme and probably not as good as the original versions anyway in Biomes and Elitist Africa.

It is strategic when the better player wins more often.

If there is any perspective that is elitist, it is this one. I don't know why people are taking it seriously. The better player is defined by the act of winning more often - it's a catch-22. If the "better player" is losing more often, were they the better player to begin with?

Of course, there are templates purely based on luck and that is not what I am talking about here.
But as it turns out anyway, luck is a highly coveted feature in the strategic scene. The irony increases...

In any case, I think "strategic" is a fairly meaningless term in the same way as "consciousness". We have a sense of what it is but good luck defining it. And trying to define it is wasting one's time. Also, each person's idea of the term is probably different. The debate over whether a template is "strategic" or not is a very useless one.

Edited 10/21/2023 02:04:55

As a rule of thumb, templates are strategic when I say so

“…luck is a highly coveted feature…”

It’s interesting how this ties in with the ‘tactics vs strategy’ distinction. If a game has complete information while being low complexity - think about something like Connect Four here - it’s boring and tedious to play. It’s pure tactics. It’s counting. The new Advanced Brawl SE template (light fog on a tiny board) is like this. Some *really* strong players who have played thousands of MME games feel that MME is like this.

But if you add in *anything* to prevent brute force calculation, even something as silly as WR, it suddenly stops being pure tactics. By definition, you’ve added strategy because tactics + strategy will always = 1

Again, I’m not saying either is preferable or good. But the most interesting games (and the most interesting Warlight templates) to me have a mix of both.

remember, this is a risk simulator ;)....

or use to be anyway

If by "Strategic" we mean templates that gives the control of the outcome to the players and involves little to no gambling, you can generally figure out how "strategic" any given template is.
Those points are also those that generally make the better player win more often.
Tho if we were to use that defintion of Strategy, it should be noted that any past / present and future game of WZ will simply be less "strategic" than Chess. Simply due to the nature of simultanous moves of all players.

For the example MA you mentioned.
While it does in a way gives the player more control and options to perform which increases skill, it also often increases the gambles you have to take as the opp now also has more options, options you cant all cover (simultanous turns and such..)
Hence why its less liked.

LD has the problem of restrciting the players options which lowers the required skill to perform well on. After all, cant outplay the opp when you deploy deep into your territory.

You can basicly apply that to any setting and see why its used so often or not (except random move order.. why is that used so much?)

I should add tho, that you cant categorize (most of the time) a settings to be strategic or not.
It really comes down to the implementation of those settings and how they interact with others.
Some settings could be strategic in specific situations, its just that they are more often than not implemented poorly and as such.. suck.

tho thats also just my take and the defintion i pulled out of thin air.

Edited 10/21/2023 20:43:15

I should add tho, that you cant categorize (most of the time) a settings to be strategic or not.

@Roi Jolel: With your definition of "strategic" is is quite easy to figure out to which degree a template matches that definition. All you have to do is calculate Elo for people playing that template and then measure the deviation. The results might not be what you hope for or expect but they will accurately measure to which degree the outcome of games on a template is determined by skill.

I believe btw. that Local Deployment games will be way up there in the "Strategic" pyramid, maybe trumped by team games.

Edited 10/22/2023 01:47:15

*I should add tho, that you cant categorize (most of the time) a settings to be strategic or not.*

-With your definition of "strategic" is is quite easy to figure out to which degree a template matches that definition.-

I said 'Setting' for a reason.
For templates, yes its easy to figure out. But you cant for specific Settings as Settings also interact with each other resulting in very different games even if most of the settings are identical.

Edited 10/22/2023 12:50:37

Just because the strategies change doesn't make one template more strategic than another but we've been trying to tell the community that for 10 years now and it looks like there's still some gatekeeping going on.

In general I'd say that all templates with no luck are strategic. When you introducing luck is where it's a gray area. For example, imo, weighted random instead of straight round makes a template not strategic. However, a template can still be strategic with some luck such as auto distribution. Years ago, bozos used to erroneously say that airlift cards were not strategic, but this is false. They just weren't ready for a team game where teammates can better help each other. This is simply something you have to factor into your strategy as you play.

Adding some luck like 0% WR or 16% SR adds a risk management strategy. Like which attacks you need to work and which aren't as essential but would like to happen.

Having too much luck definitely removes strategy, can't depend on any attacks working. A very long time ago 75% WR was the default and you had to level up to reduce the luck modifier and change the rounding mode. The amount of luck made 4 attackers v 2 defenders work less than 90% of the time. There's also the <10% chance of an attack not working, which rarely happens. More luck increases high probability attacks not succeeding.

I would say airlifts in single player levels add strategy (like the old Europe challenge) but in multiplayer I wouldn't say so. Makes the amount of armies on the front line too unpredictable.

the unpredictable factor is part of the strategy. you have to be prepared for the territory you're attacking to get a big transfer. the risk management is knowing you might lose more armies on your attack

the purpose of team games is defeated if I can't send help to my teammates. imo all team games should have airlifts

The problem of you being unable to help your teammate isnt that there is no airlift card.
The problem is that you either play shitty templates with auto dist 1 terr, or you and your teammate dont know how to pick.

"the unpredictable factor is part of the strategy. you have to be prepared for the territory you're attacking to get a big transfer. the risk management is knowing you might lose more armies on your attack"

an "unpredictable factor" is called luck.
likewise you cannot "prepare" for a big transfer. you either crash into it, or you dont attack and risk the opp not airlifting it.
There is no "preparing" behind it.

I think the last time I've seen a player being as fundamentally wrong about something as QueefBalls in the discussion above was when I lost a bet against Kurdistan49, claiming the order execution sequence was AAbbAAbb rather than AbbAAbb some time around 2016. I had to buy him a kebab.

It's not luck, it's your opponent using a tool that you know they have and can use at any time. Your lack of contingency planning doesn't make them lucky.

Every template has the potential for you to get into a jam, and the airlift card allows you to get your teammate out of that jam. How do you think jamrod came to be regarded as one of the best Warlight players of all time?

Airlift card is universally accepted as non strategic because it happens before attacks and transfers. Just like emergency blockade. And bomb. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it’s wrong!

If you ask anyone in the strategic community, then they'll say that airlift has no strategic value.