The Difficulty Behind Grand Strategy Game Design -- Critical Thought

[@mikaxms]

I'm currently working on a grand strategy game (set during WW2), so this was quite helpful! Making the tutorial will definitely be quite difficult, I want to solve this using a campaign. Not over scoping is the other hard part.

[@silverrain530]

Do you know of any material I could learn on how to program a grand strategy game? I would like to eventually try to develop one but have not been able to find an information how to do so.

[@mikaxms]

@@silverrain530 No sorry, I have just played a couple of them for inspiration. I am making it with a hexagon map in Unity, but it is very difficult. So, I would recommend starting with a small strategy game; say with only tanks.

[@silverrain530]

@@mikaxms I'm fairly new to game design so I wasn't expecting to make the next Total War or Civ or anything but I'd like to learn how the general process works. Thanks for the answer

[@George-real]

I’ve played loads of grand strategy games and I’ve never used the tutorials so you don’t have to stress over it

[@goddessoflesbians1153]

Same I'm trying to make it to where it is simple to play however still have things which show country ideolagies

[@americannatsoc5205]

what about paradox they make the biggest map games like eu4, hoi4, ck2, and victoria 2 i just hate there dlc policy but modding there games cant be easier

[@grahamturner2640]

Sjwaria Law I’m pretty sure they use C# with their in-house engine.

[@maurom98]

The way i really learnt to play Paradox Games is by watching lets plays of people who have a clear objective i wanted to achieve, so in HOI4 i would watch a video of someone who tries to survive the winter war as Finland and i would copy their strategy while experimenting and understanding what they were doing. Also i would take small countries and understand the mechanics in these limited scenarios.

[@Game-wisdom]

while not 100% related. When I was trying to learn Dead by Daylight after failing the first time, I watched as many high level plays of killers that I could to study the general strategies and moment to moment of how a match played out. Listening to people talk about how a survivor would do X, and what to watch out for, helped me greatly.

[@alpineswiftai]

Im working on a superhero grand strategy game. We are 1 year+ in development and I needed this. Thanks!

[@Game-wisdom]

thanks for watching, best of luck with it and when the time comes, I'm always looking for games to show off here on the channel.

[@alpineswiftai]

@@Game-wisdom will do.

[@Tiogar60]

What's the game name, still working on it?

[@alpineswiftai]

@@Tiogar60 It was superhero tactics. Had a Russian Game Dev, the Ukraine War embargo stopped us. Using Ai to continue development soon. Its nearly good enough

[@JohnSmith-1066]

Great video on the genre. It deserves more views.

[@cheydinal5401]

I heard before starting EU4 that you need 24h of gameplay to get it, and it was true. I never even opened many mechanics tabs (like religion) in the beginning until I got around to learning them, and it was basically fine. Although I should say that for the first 500h-1000h or so that I played it (as a 15-18-year-old), I mostly just saved and loaded all the time to basically cheat. So not really the most strategic way to actually play it

[@obadakhalid713]

i am a really hardcore euIV fan I am not sure if I can explain it but being good is basically a skill it's like art or writing or football you practice alot and you learn stuff about the game mechanics along the way also READ the loading screen tips they are sometimes actually useful ikr weird

[@SparrowValentine]

I already have over 500 hours in CK2 oops

[@marco1941]

A tutorial could teach the basic principles, like the most important numbers and what they effect as well as what effects them. You can teach the combat system, the diplomacy system and so on. I think you can break things down to certain basic principles and how they interrelate. (Pretty much how you would teach those things in real life).

[@jaydengroom7798]

Paradox games are 10 times more complicated and harder then civ which is so simple and total war which is slightly difficult.

[@silverrain530]

Some may disagree, but I think Rome 2: Total War had a really good tutorial. It introduced a lot of the mechanics in both the battle and map parts of the game and how they should be applied. It also allowed the player to do his/her own thing in the battles while offering a general guideline to follow. This seemed like a good balance between leaving the player alone and holding their hand. It gave just enough direction to understand the concepts and allowed for situations where the player could intuitively apply those concepts. My issue is Rome 2 is not my first Total War game, not by a long shot. This is a problem, as this could have just seemed easy for me since I already knew it. When I did start my first Total War game in Medieval 2, I thought the tutorial did a decent job but not on the level of Shogun 2's or Rome 2's. There also is the factor of hardware limitations and how complex medieval 2 can get. Also, it would be kind of funny if the Shogun 2 tutorial just said "Play Oda, spam ashigaru, yari wall broken, win"

[@christophmahler]

The best introduction into the 'Total War' series, I'd encountered so far were so called 'After Action Reports' by players, _collecting empirical evidence_ in *repeated playthroughs* , looking for 'patterns of re-occuring events' which helped to draft advice for _an optimum course of action during 'the first ten rounds'_ , establishing a player's foothold in the game world with a faction. What the optimum course is, ultimately depends on the actual conditions - which have to be either confirmed or 'gambled upon' if unknown. The study of history shows that the latter isn't a reliable 'strategy' - and most military education builds upon *_historical_** studies* , assuming *constant* drives and best practices of man in given situations. Future events can't be predicted with precise certainty, but there are reoccuring patterns of human action through the centuries which shape expectations and which offer _a frame of reference_ if one does imagine to 'think outside the box' (e.g. the rise of Christianity in a declining Roman empire). 'Wargaming' like 4X-games simulate this experience in an often crudely simplified form, e.g. with an immersion breaking diplomacy of entities that would be diagnosed as _insane_ if they were actual people.

[@Game-wisdom]

AARs are always good for trying to learn games, and really are a good basis for building a tutorial around, as you need to be able to learn not just how to do something but the thought process of being able to play it.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

4X has too main stumbling blocks for a casual audience. Games are too long, and there are too many systems at play to quickly understand. I am frankly a bit suprised we havnt seen more turorial campaigns focusing on individual systems. Like imagine a gamemeode for Master of orion 2 where you do nothing but design a ship from a set budgetand see how well it does in an AI vs AI fight. Or a series of missions where you command a fleet with increesingly outlandish abilities.

[@Game-wisdom]

I think the problem with individual systems is that it doesn't really explain to someone what they should be doing as a whole. I've said this before, but a good tutorial needs to explain, "What I'm doing, How do I do it, and Why am I Doing it." Showing someone how to click economy sliders or moving infantry around doesn't help them build up a framework for how a game is played. Another problem is that most 4X games never just happen over one turn. Everyone raise your hand if you ever made a mistake that didn't hit you until a dozen or so turns later. And that makes it impossible as a new player to know why they lost.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

+Game-Wisdom Thats why I suggested tutorializing systems in isolation.

[@MrElrood]

Would bore crap out of anyone who plays strategy games, would not catch attention of action packed reflex based games crowd. I've already have a problem with tutorials holding so much hand that I get bored with "strategy" game where everything is so crafted there is no strategy, only linear "puzzle with solution printed out" gameplay.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

+MrElrood Im not suggesting handholdy tutorial bullshit. Im suggesting a story campaign where the systems only get introduced one by one. Citybuilders and tycoon games already do it

[@MrElrood]

Here is the thing - citybuilders and tycoon games are often enforcing on reenacting whole stuff over and over again. Like settlers, every game you get a bit further, but you need to redo all basic stuff. I much more like civilization and factorio approach - where you are introduced to each mechanic in time (in civ with technology and exploration, in factorio with unlocking more powerfull technologies) and if you mess something up you can in normal game recover and play forward without restarting and learning from the begging. Settler (and tutorials) are introducing one mechanic at the time, but at the same time are forcing repetition of already learned stuff. you don't have a choice "did i mess up enough to not be able to progress", you have "okey, checkpoint, rise and repeat". This is why imho story campaign doesn't have much sense in a lot of games and with really complex systemic game (Distant Worlds very good example) you have huge problems, especially with cutting it to each size so its engaging and interesting + manageable. Now that i think about it, Imperium Galactica 1 did what you said, but even then imho it felt as hand holding and constricting system (and didn't work that well in the long run). Well, it turned into a rant :) Tldr - I don't know any game that made it right for me, either killing replay-ability or killing fun from story campaign. Edit: Actually Battle Fleet Gothic 2 Armada is attempting to do something similar. Not yet sure how i feel about it. Probably the best attempt up to date, but i will hold myself right to revise it when i play a lot more of it.

[@NerevarineKing]

I think Stellaris was a good way for me to learn some of the mechanics of the genre since I was already familiar with 4x. But even after that I still watched some Quill18 tutorials to learn EU4 and Vic2.

[@darrentoodles5238]

Great video 👍👍👍 def deserves more views

[@somnitek]

What made me stick around when it comes to learning Paradox games like HOI4, EU4, Victoria 2, Stellaris, etc. was also something else they do that I noticed AI Wars kinda doesn't. The very process of playing the game allows you to develop your nation and such in your own preferred way. If they expanded on this so you could do more than just "pick" the political leanings of your nation, instead opting for something more detail focus like a tagging system for governmental and political features, systems, and other details, then took those tags and used them to assemble a political, cultural, economic, etc. models that the player had to also manage... well oh shit, I'd do horrible horrible things, pay ridiculous amounts of money for, and otherwise pursue the ownership of such a game with untold aggressive interest.... but alas.... SOMEONE FROM PARADOX READ THIS PLEASE AAARRRRRGGGHHHH..... I suppose Stellaris and EU4 come closest, followed by HOI4. Stellaris DOES use something sorta similar to what I'm describing but I don't think they've fleshed it out to the degree they could have, but close enough to deserve a lot of love from this guy, nonetheless. But... I WANT MOOOOORE!!!! ***que song play: tonedef - glutton now***

[@hugomorgan1997]

question for you my friend, from a fellow lover of the paradox games. Started with ck2 and have played everything since. If you had a game where your government and technology developed organically depends on the decisions and actions you make whilst maintaining an rts style as well as giving a relevant way of customisation of soldiers and a tacitical element. what would you think? I mean it's just a pipe dream of mine with the coding ability of me doing python for 3D data analysis and that's it. I think I have a good idea, just no clue on the scope or the ability to really even start.

[@SamGarcia]

"How did you start understanding ______ 4X game"? That's the neat part, I don't

[@acethesupervillain348]

I think asking for a tutorial to explain it is missing the point. The fun of these kinds of games is figuring it out as you play. To experiment and explore the mechanics of the game. The fun of the game is not just to win, but to figure out how to win. And then once you've won on one kind of map against one kind of enemy, that doesn't mean you've figured out the whole game. You get to have the fun of figuring out what to do again the next time. Therefor, an accessible grand strategy game should not be a game with good tutorials, but a game that can feed mechanics to a player slowly, so they have time to learn things one by one and not all at once.

[@Game-wisdom]

The problem is that for new players starting at 0 understanding, they need something as a foundation to build off of or any discussions of mechanics is going to go over their heads.

[@titanama0574]

@@Game-wisdom I think the simplest solution to that is to explain the mechanics, then teach them the basic principles of strategy, not simply strategy for the game, as that is nearly impossible to do, but the actual principles of strategy for the areas that are in the game, for example in the case of a game like CK2 or HoI4, you might teach how to judge where to strike based on locations of enemy troops as well as terrain, in a game with a complex economic system, teach the mechanics, then teach the basic principles of managing an economy. This is how I'd do it anyway, though you should only teach the basics as rarely does strategy IRL fully apply to a game.

[@Game-wisdom]

@@titanama0574 The challenge is getting the person to understand the methodology of how you play the game. I would think that structuring the tutorial almost like a quasi let's play may be a possible solution: so that the person is seeing in real-time what they need to do in order to play the game and use these systems.

[@titanama0574]

@@Game-wisdom that would work and well, as people already use let's plays to learn games. I actually learned the more in depth strategies in paradox's games from let's plays.

[@juanagustinjuannaz6143]

I had tried playing GE games before but the results are always the same, it all resumes basically to: "Many tabs hurt my brain, please, explain better what this button does"

[@Game-wisdom]

Maybe some day I'll find a grand strategy game that I can learn, but it hasn't happened yet

[@xchalibur77]

The biggest mistake games today makes is teaching you all the rules in one go and usually those games have hundreds of detail that can change in their game. I am still by the idea of older games in how they did their tutorials by teaching you one mechanics at a time and then let you practice with such mechanics. The fact that I will do different is that I would make all the game play with just those mechanics that you learned until that time. And then add another mechanic and let you add that to those already learned and be able to play the game as much as you want. When thinking what Confucius said it all gets much clearer "Tell me and I will forget Show me and I will remember Let me do it and I will learn. "

[@majormononoke8958]

I disagree, it is true that we find many systems that interact and get overwhelmed by them. But as an example we have Hearts of iron 4, it has many systems. We have diplomacy, different players/nations reacting to your actions etc., but with time you will notice that the system isnt as deep at it seems. I would even go further because the game consists of so many systems, many of the systems lack depth. In the diplomacy system in HoI4 we find that no matter what you can only attack so many countries, before certain players mainly the Allies GB will declare war on you. Certain countries will just auto aggro on you no matter what. Certain players automatically will branch into certain factions, those being Allies, Commies, Axis, Easter Co sphere. Looking over them it is not that hard to understand them. The main problem is that often the game lacks the transparency. Further, you dont need the best "build/action" to win a game. Just make an automode for each system and let the player figure out one after an other.

[@cyberwraith9999]

I just found this while looking for general info on GSGs. Since it has been a couple years since the video was made, I wonder if your thinking and approach has changed, but it seems like you are starting with a bit of a false assumption. A tutorial should teach how to PLAY the game, not necessarily how to WIN the game. Yes, it certainly makes sense to understand WHY you do something, but a large part of what makes these games fun is that you don’t necessarily have a fixed path or even a single goal. The very definition of winning itself can change not just from player to player but game to game. And since the games are simulations, there definitely are rules and systems. The best systems are more complex, dynamic, and interdependent. So changing one variable often has unpredictable outcomes, BUT having a solid understanding of the systems and rules allows one to adjust to (and possibly even predict) changes and unpredictable outcomes. Therefore, the best tutorials would be the ones that best teach the systems and how they interact, and then one has enough of a foundation to start experimenting and learning further.

[@Game-wisdom]

But in order for the player to understand the rules and systems, they need to know what they're building towards and that's where a lot of grand strategy design tends to fail at onboarding. It's not about telling the player "do this and you win" but "you are trying to do X, and these will help you." Balatro blowing up among non roguelike fans is a big example of how much you can stack complexity onto something if the core gameplay is simple enough to learn. In it, your goal is to get a lot of chips, and how you do that is going to be dependent on the cards you play and the jokers you get. Each joker is incredibly easy to understand what it does at the base level, but the interactions and dynamics that evolve from them are where the game becomes complex. For many grand strategy titles, the onboarding goes "build this, build this, build this, move here, tutorial complete." But that doesn't explain why they should be building these, what's the difference between building X vs. Y, why would I want X or Y, if I get a popup saying that something is wrong, how do I fix it?

[@Very_Silly_Individual]

The difficulty is that mfs don't think when they should've thanked

[@Jaystarzgaming]

World Warfare.

[@g0lanu]

The idea that in StarCraft 2 you know exactly what you should do during a match is ... flawed. If we were robots, maybe we could say that because the game is balanced properly and it does work consistently (but even then, it would still be problematic because the number of available combinations is beyond what a modern day computer can comprehend, let alone a person). However, execution tips that on its head and each match you have to think on the go, preparation goes so far. The notion is simply... completely false because of that. And the idea that grand strategy games are that more dynamic is also flawed, they're very poorly balanced games, all of them, and on top of that, the AI has clear limitations that the players find after just a few playthroughs. Paradox grand strategy titles are interesting not because the build is so dynamic, but because their abstraction of historic context is interesting. They've design well the game, its concepts, its mechanics so that the player has something other than the bad AI to focus on. And this constant changing means that they can't properly focus on game balance. At the end of the day, it's a shame that you have this interesting design, but the AI gets in the way of the enjoyment.

[@majormononoke8958]

Exactly, hearts of iron 4 is the best example. Once you have played it long enought or watched it log enought you will see process behind the things. In HoI4 it is the fact that the alliances have allways the same following. Allies playing world police, and you just trying to grab the most of it. Certain countries just having no endings buffs likes Nazi Germany making it allways one of those that will either run all over or just die. In fact i would claim that the more grand strategy the game is, the more flaws it has in all in its systems. Once you go to play the small minigames in these different parts of the games, ressources managment in solaris, or the avation parts of hearts of iron 4 you will notice how borring they realy are... In fact any game with time you will notice certain things. Like in Chess developing pieces, or taking the center, the advantage of certain pieces in different parts of the game. Like Bishops in the endgame with few paws. While knights can be stronger in the endgame, if the paws are blocking the bishops colors and stuff. Even in game that are real time strategy you can argue for grand strategy elements. Starcraft Broodwar/ Remastered has a neverending depth thx to importance and longevity of its existence, similar to chess. The development of your skills in the relativly short games in process of the time you interact with the game. Be it the way and order your send your workers to mine on different maps for the better opimization of your mining. The base layout on different maps for fastest macro without disturbing macro, while defending your base. Army compotion and execution. Than the different strategies you encounter that you recounter that are currently used all in connection with the skill and ability you possess. Though in single player these different games can become borring because the ai is not able to keep up and has got a similar interface as we do, since it isnt a human and more often not exactly has different abilities to adapt, but just exectues the sames responces every single time without thought. The multiplayer of these different games in fact is very similar to a grand strategy game. And differently to the grand strategy game multiplayer isnt one session that isnt over once one player leaves loses connection or takes 3 hours to just beginn the game.

[@theuberman7170]

I got to this point by wasting years of my life... lol

[@aldiascholarofthefirstsin1051]

The genre for people who don't work in real life but want to test out how it is.