>>1982015 >It subtracts from the skill required to win. You need no skill to play, actually. You can move randomly, being corrected every time you do something against the rules, and still win if you get the dice roll. If you just play random moves on Rando Chess, after 100 games, you will be in the lowest tier of players, while the highest skilled players will still be in the top. Just because there is a 1/6 chance to win one game of Rando Chess after loosing the regular chess round against a Chess Master, doesn't mean you will win against him if you do best of 10 or best of 50 (has been done before for regular chess). Kind of like with Poker, the people who are in the top, might loose a few rounds here and there, but they win on average, because of their skills. Also you haven't explained how it subtracts from the skill. How does throwing a dice at the end of the game, substract from all the skills involved in playing chess? Are there somehow less moves? Less strategies? Less pieces? The answer is no, Rando Chess involves the same amount of skill as Regular Chess, but also has extra RNG.

>>1982559 I am angry that fags like the OP of the thread in that image are allowed to even LOOK at video games!

>>1978632 Me as Dagger please

>>1984216 U want'n to get scooted by the monkey or the little black mage boy?

>>1984239 Both, I can take two boys at once

>>1984353 >I can take two boys at once

>Turn based combat without real time mechanics in any game is fucking garbage I don't think anyone genuinely believes this, otherwise I would see people demanding real time elements in poker, chess, etc. But it's strangely common for retards to play a turn based strategy game involving cute anime girls, dislike the combat, and then extrapolate wildly until they reach hilariously retarded conclusions. Somehow they become unable to comprehend the possibility of relying on intelligence rather than dexterity, or that the abstraction of combat in the game doesn't need to be a direct recreation of reality (I don't see these people complaining that chess piece movements are too unrealistic). It's a very strange phenomenon. >>1981479 >RNG inherently makes a game less skillful. RNG generally makes games more complex. If every action has a certain outcome it essentially becomes a puzzle where you are searching for a single route to the end. But if there are multiple possible outcomes for an action you now have to weigh the probability of each outcome against the favorability of those outcomes and continue doing so for every subsequent possible gamestate. The decision tree becomes much more dense. It takes a lot of effort and 'skill' to sift through all the countless possibilities and determine the optimal moves, whereas if you were to remove the RNG or to allow the player full control over the RNG the game would be greatly simplified. Also consider the impact of RNG on enemy behavior. This also applies to other genres like action games and shmups. If there's no RNG involved then the player only needs to memorize a single sequence of movements to win every time, but if the boss has some randomness in how he moves and fires his bullets then you actually need to git gud to win consistently.

>>1979137 XV and XVI are not competent action games in general, so that's not really a fair comparison XV had its entire combat system scrapped months before release and replaced with borderline autoplay, and XVI is just a non-videogame that hates letting you hold the controller if XVI played like Crystal Chronicles or something, it'd be a totally different comparison. Not that CC is an amazing Action RPG but at least it works

>>1984526 >>1984353 your mom can take more than that, get on her level faggots.

>>2004679 >calling me a fag for liking men I'm uber straight, IDIOT

Name even one turn based game with real time mechanics that is good because the only one that comes to mind is Absented Age 1 + 2 and those are pretty obscure games

>>2005073 yeah uber straight on a road that runs zigzag FAGGOT

>>2005137 If you're running zigzags in straight lines, you're still technically straight

>>2005111 Off the top of my head, 13 Sentinels was good the vn portion wasn't bad either imo Too bad about the whole exclusivity thing because they're afraid of piracy Silly nips, it's like they don't know emulators exist

>>2005111 Eternal Sonata

>>2005217 >>2005884 So games most people did not play? I think op is just complaining just to complain. RTS games literally have no depth whatsoever, if you have a bigger force with more health, you will win 99% of the time

>>2005925 >RTS games literally have no depth whatsoever, if you have a bigger force with more health, you will win 99% of the time You never played an RTS game in your life

>>2005933 I've played plenty before and this is almost always how shit goes. My most recent rts game that I played was Hearts of Iron IV and Stellaris and I was not particularly impressed with them. I mise well have been playing Risk but in real time

>>2005942 >My most recent rts game that I played was Hearts of Iron IV and Stellaris Holy fucking shit, kill yourself

>>2005925 >So games most people did not play? your question wasn't about popularity

>>2005942 >Hearts of Iron IV and Stellaris >might as well have been playing Risk No shit retard, that's grand strategy games in a nutshell and I'd argue grand strategy and rts fill different niches, let alone turn-based games with real time elements, but w/e I agree op's complaint is dumb Another 'turn based-ish' game I remember is Phantom Brigade, but I didn't like it on release

>>2006133 How about give us some examples then because the absolute best I've seen from an rts game would be a rock paper scissors mechanic and to me, that's pretty lazy game design. You should actually be able to strategize in a strategy game. There should be a path to victory even if you're outnumbered 3 to 1 and I think there is no better example of this in a strategy game than what Sengoku Rance accomplished

>>2007748 Fundamentally, the 'strategy' in 'grand strategy' is about map painting and optimizing whatever systems are in the game to facilitate said map painting (tall players may cope, but that's ultimately the point) ergo >if you have a bigger force with more health, you will win 99% of the time aka getting to the point where you have a greater ingame econ to build and then support said bigger force is the main part of the gameplay. >There should be a path to victory even if you're outnumbered 3 to 1 There are exceptions but generally if you've allowed yourself to get into a situation that bad that's on you and you deserve to lose As for rts tech, idk use fow/highgroud, chokepoints...you really sound like you haven't played any when you say "things that exist specifically to beat other things is lazy game design"

>>2005111 Paper Mario TTYD

>>2008466 >There are exceptions but generally if you've allowed yourself to get into a situation that bad that's on you and you deserve to lose What if your aim is for quality over quantity and to beat the game like this? Again, there is no actual strategy in an rts game and the gameplay should not revolve almost entirely around who has the better economy. If I wanted that garbage I'd play an economy sim

>>2008466 Also >muh chokepoints Oh so you basically cheesing the game by forcing your enemy to go through a tight squeeze on the map? What about flanking in an open area? Why the fuck does that barely exist in rts games?

This thread really seemed to attract the biggest retards on the board

>>2011165 >What if your aim is for quality over quantity >What if your aim is to win the game in a way that isn't feasible for the situation Then you're retarded >using map features is cheesing >you're cheesing the game by fighting in mountains >you're cheesing the game by fighting in the air >you're cheesing the game by fighting in the ocean Okay okay, so I fell for the bait, but this next one >gameplay should not revolve almost entirely around who has the better economy Is VERY funny :^)

>>2011666 Oh so you're an actual retard. >My objection is that rock paper scissors is bad That's not what I'm saying you fucking retard, lol. What I am saying however is that only having that mechanic is fucking lazy game design. Playing with only 1 troop type is totally one dimensional and should lose you the majority of strategy games yet funny enough, in rts games it works a lot better as a tactic and can be a winning strategy. Try that shit in Sengoku Rance or Alchemy Meister and see how far that shit gets you. What I find most funny is that these to hentai games are more strategic than your stupid rts games and it's not even close lol >you're cheesing the game by fighting in mountains Not what I'm saying and fighting in mountainous regions is really not that common in rts games, what I'm talking about cheesing (and I think you know damn well what I'm talking about) is fighting an enemy that just throws themselves at you in single file lines and your forces just easily moping them up.

>to *two

>>2011165 >Again, there is no actual strategy in an rts game and the gameplay should not revolve almost entirely around who has the better economy. If I wanted that garbage I'd play an economy sim The strategy part of what we call "Real Time Strategy", is mostly on economy, production and population management(things like Warcraft 3 or Age of Empires, has a population cap, so you need to balance between peasants and soldiers) and that is kind of how it is in real life. Wars are won in the supply chains, not on the battle field. For those who want to go even more in the economy aspect, the Anno series fill that niche. >>2013400 >Playing with only 1 troop type is totally one dimensional and should lose you the majority of strategy games It's kind of how most armies functioned, Alexander's army was like 90% hoplites with a small cavalry division, Rome's army was mostly infantry, with cavalry sometimes being outsourced to barbarian mercenaries. If you want to go to something more "recent", in Napoleon's time, it was mostly infantry men with the same rifles, a few canon units and a cavalry unit, but again 80-90% were just these standard infantry men. Sometimes that's how you do it, you just get the best type of unit, have most of your army composed of it, and have the rest fill different niches, like cavalry. Some RTS games, simply reflect that reality, like in Age of Empires 2, where most endgame armies will be mostly their soldiers that they get from the Castle, or some other unit, with a few trebuchets for walls and buildings. With all that said, it sounds like you would enjoy more the "Real Time Tactics" games, also refereed to as RTT, like Men of War, or just the Total War games, if you want big armies fighting, and the economy takes a back seat. That is if you want real time gameplay, as the examples of good strategy games you provide are turn based games.

>>2005925 >RTS games literally have no depth >>2007748 >>2011165 >>2008466 >There should be a path to victory even if you're outnumbered 3 to 1. >gameplay should not revolve almost entirely around who has the better economy. >so you basically cheesing the game by forcing your enemy to go through a tight squeeze. All of these are alternative ways to win in most RTS games, there is your depth.

>>2013400 >the absolute best I've seen from and rts is rock paper scissors = playing with only 1 troop type is one dimensional Kinda contradictory to say "rock paper scissors lazy" and then "you can win building only one troop type" but okay What do you mean 'one troop type' anyway? Just infantry? Stupid argument because there's usually several types of infantry. Same thing with cav, armor, etc. and even then running JUST infantry is most likely game losing >funny enough, in rts games it(running one unit) works a lot better as a tactic and can be a winning strategy >doesn't name names or use examples, but surely most of them do this Games where mono is stupid and will lose you the game: >grand strat TWW(hell, any CA game) - running a 20 stack of one unit vs a balanced army means you will lose against a somewhat competent player >inb4 monsters ah yes the fact that you have one type of unit will win you the game and not the fact that your army costs 5 times a much as a normal one >regular rts AoE - lmao imagine any singular combination of just infantry, arty, or cav >Try that shit in Sengoku Rance or Alchemy Meister Been meaning to give Rance a try, but comparing a Eushully trpg to an rts is genuinely like comparing checkers to chess, and this is coming from someone who likes trpg more than rts, wtf are you on about >Not what I'm saying and fighting in mountainous regions is really not that common in rts games >missing the forest for the trees My original point was using map features and terrain is strategic, and you turned it into "fighting an enemy that just throws themselves at you in single file lines" Is your problem with the ai then? Turn up the difficulty or play multiplayer then

>>2014127 >What do you mean 'one troop type' anyway? I mean exactly that. As another anon said, generally in rts games you fill your army with 80-90% of the same exact unit. >Been meaning to give Rance a try, but comparing a Eushully trpg to an rts is genuinely like comparing checkers to chess, and this is coming from someone who likes trpg more than rts, wtf are you on about I was saying that Alchemy Meister has more strategic depth than any rts game I've seen and making a comparison, that's all I was doing. Don't believe me? Go and play the level 100 dungeons at the end of the game and come back to me >My original point was using map features and terrain is strategic, and you turned it into "fighting an enemy that just throws themselves at you in single file lines" Are you esl? Do you not know what "chokepoint" means? Because it most certainly does not mean playing on different types of terrains.

>>2014258 >80-90% of the same exact unit 80-90% isn't 100% anon, and the remaining 10-20% makes a huge difference >go play the ng+ postgame dungeons and get back to me As insane as that statement sounds, a resist and level/stat check isn't particularly complex >chokepoints does not mean playing on different types of terrain >hyperfixates on one word, missing the point entirely Ah, you're one of THOSE Continue not to play rts anon, it's not a genre for you, and that's okay