Thinking three moves ahead

[riadsala]

So, here's a question: can anybody think of any (tbs) games in which it pays to read three moves ahead?

 

The question has been generated by two games: Go and XCOM. This year, I've been trying to get good at Go (a game in a similar style to chess) and am acutely aware that I need to work on my readings skills if I want to get stronger. I've also (finally) started playing XCOM as a friend very kindly bought it for me in the steam sale. I'm really enjoying it, but I'm also noticing that you really don't need to read ahead. At most, you perhaps read 1 move ahead: "if I move my sniper, she'll be in a better position next turn."

 

but, this isn't really what I'd call reading. For the purpose of this thread, can I make a distinction between "planning" and "reading." In Civ V I frequently have plans for moving units into position in order to take a city. The "reading" I'm talking about is when you think about what moves your opponent might make in response to your moves, how you you would then respond to those moves, etc, before deciding what move you should make. 

 

I definitely don't do this in Civ V. And so far, I'm not doing this in XCOM (although I'm still on my first playthrough on Normal, so this may well change when I step up to Classic). I just try and optimize my current turn and do my best to make sure everybody is in cover, and try and take out the closest aliens first. I guess I think a little about "well, if the alien moves here, then I'm flanked and in cover, so I should fall back" but to be honest, this seems to have minimal impact on my game. 

 

[please note, this isn't an anti-XCOM post, as I'm really enjoying it]

[clyde]

Banner Saga: Factions has a lot of opportunity for this type of thing. It's free and multiplayer only. A lot of the tactics involve identifying the most powerful possible tactic of the enemy player and then determining a way to nerf it before it can be used. I think that most people probably do play it one move at a time, but anyone who thinks two rounds ahead (meaning each party member is moved twice) has a massive advantage. I suppose that isn't three moves though.

[TheLastBaron]

Everything I can think of is just doing something on your turn to set up your next turn.  I think it has to do with how much of the playing area you can see.  In Civ V and X-COM you can't see everything in the entire game at once so you take things one or two turns at a time (well not in Civ).  In Go (or Chess) you see the entire board and on your opponents turn they only do one thing as opposed to moving a whole bunch of things so you can start anticipating and looking ahead more.  I guess in games the closest to this would be a board based tactical game (like Banner Saga), though still I think that's mostly just the two moves ahead thing.

[riadsala]

Hmmm, interesting. And again, I'm not trying to argue "chess and go are better games than "computer strategy" games." I'm just noting that it's perhaps odd, given the name of the podcast, that games which allow/reward/demand thinking "three moves ahead" are never discussed. [although, it's still a great name for a strategy game podcast!].

 

Thinking about it some more, it seems to me that the challenge of most "computer strategy" games (although also applies to most board games beyond chess and go) is one of system optimization, and even "tactics" games don't really have much scope for interaction between the two sides. 

 

TheLastBaron: Interesting idea, but I'm not sure that I buy it as the main reason. For example: you're trying to take a city in Civ V. there's a hill near the city and you'd like to put your catapult on it. But, the hill is on the flank - if you move your catapult onto the hill, then there's a chance their might be some enemy knights just beyond your sight range. So, move catapult > enemy knights move into attack range > but you know you can then retreat your catapult and send your spearmen down to guard the flank. > enemy knights chase catapults > you kill knights with spearmen. But you've spent 3 turns not attacking the city with the catapult, giving your opponent more time to build reinforcements. So going back to the current turn, perhaps you should put your spearmen on the hill to guard against the possibility of an enemy cav counter attack, and move the catapult forward.

 

but, at least when I play, I don't go through these thought processes when deciding if I should move the catapult onto the hill. Does anybody else? Or is the game set up in a way that its just not deep enough to reward the mental effort? 

[clyde]

Are you asking for turn-based computer games where it pays off to prepare for counter-attacks? Am I simplifying your question too much?

[riadsala]

Are you asking for turn-based computer games where it pays off to prepare for counter-attacks? Am I simplifying your question too much?

 

I think that's a little simplified. In my mind, "reading" is when you explicitly go through a sequence of moves to work out what responses your opponent could make, and how you would deal with those, in order to decide which of several potential moves would be best.

 

This is a bit different from playing moves that are "good" in general. For example, in XCOM, I'm not "reading" when I do my best to end my turn with every squad member in cover and on overwatch. That's just sensibly preparing for an alien counter attack - I'm not considering what form the counter attack might take and how I would respond to the different possibility. Does that make sense?

 

Perhaps a chess example (I don't really play chess though, so this might be stretching things a bit). A general principle is to make sure that your opponent can't capture any of your pieces next turn, and if they do, that you'll be able to make a satisfactory exchange. I guess this is reading 2 turns ahead. (depending if you count hte move you're about to make as turn 1)

 

I'm guessing a good player doesn't always follow this principle, as they will read ahead and think "ok, if I let my opponent take my rook with his knight, then I will be able to move my queen here, and place his king in check. She could respond by making one of several moves,..." and you then start evaluating each of those moves, to see if they all lead to a board position that is favourable enough to make the initial sacrifice worth while.

 

Does that make sense?

 

And again, I'm not arguing that chess and go are better because of reading! 

 

The only game that has been covered on the podcast that I can think of is Blood Bowl. (which is perhaps a good example of a non-deterministic game with reading)

[sclpls]

XCOM is a tactics game. To play a strategy game well you need long-term planning, that's where "thinking three moves ahead" comes in. In a tactics game it is going to be about taking advantage of the situation in front of you. Some games are a mix of strategy and tactics, and then you have to make calculations about taking short-term gains vs. long-term objectives.

[biz]

any game with tactical battles will have this because it's literally like a board game at that point

 

for me, recent examples are legendary heroes & fire emblem awakening

 

xcom is just a poorly designed tactical game because the best tactic is just about looking half a turn ahead

all you have to do is end your turn in safe cover and overwatch and/or safe distance and you have played optimally.

 

 

 

i booted up civ 5 with their latest flavor of poor game design

 

I guess when there's a barbarian at your border you will count how many moves it will take for him to reach your worker...

it's just a bit of counting... I wouldn't say that requires any real thought

 

 

everything else in is either long-term planning or immediate optimization

 

in some rare instances of multiplayer I will think a few steps ahead strategically, but not in terms of discrete turns

[Procyon Lotor]

Sid Meier's "Ace Patrol", an iPad strategy/tactic game, is an example of a game where it pays to think three moves ahead (or more).  You can play it poorly by pushing planes around without thinking.  To play it well you need to plan coordinated attacks that will unfold over several moves.