Categories of Action in Strategy Gaming

quote: In this article, I'm going to seek to elucidate a theory of how players' actions operate in the context of strategy games - mostly, in a competitive setting, though I think it also applies to single player or co-op as well. Specifically, I'm looking at how games' rules direct player action into one of 4 interrelated categories of action, which I'm calling "Preparatory" actions, "Anticipatory" actions, "Direct" actions, and "Reactionary" actions. 'll take a look at each category separately, using examples across a range of games, and then talk about how these relate to one another, and where I feel existing game design could do a better job of providing a more rewarding experience.

Categories of Action in Strategy Gaming

I'd argue that there is very little Preparatory Action in Zero-K.
Proper economic play in Zero-K comes down to Reactive and Anticipatory Action on most maps.
It is the standard Rock-Paper-Scissors of Expansion->Defense->Harassment->Expansion.
Outside of the meta in understanding factory balance and how different maps play, Preparatory Actions in Zero-K have pretty short time spans compared to the builds of Starcraft or the basebuilding and economy expansion in Supreme Commander/Forged Alliance.

"Preparatory actions that provide a high degree of control of economic outcomes."

Even if the economy have a high degree of freedom, the economic outcome usually only comes down to a single number.
It fallacious to assume that higher complexity in the economy leads to more options. Without interference from the enemies plans, it is just a single player game in the style of a puzzle and/or an optimization problems.

Optimization and solving puzzles are fun and many games are made for it like in SimCity and Factorio for example, but just adding those mechanics to a RTS would most likely just add tedium and frustration.

The author uses the Adjacency system in Supreme Commander as an example.
Personally I think the Adjacency system in SupCom is one of the worst systems for economic "freedom" as they add a lot of complexity and optimization problems with very few strategic implications that actually matters for your opponents plans or even your own plans.

quote: "Preparatory actions that provide a high degree of control of economic outcomes." Even if the economy have a high degree of freedom, the economic outcome usually only comes down to a single number.

I don't think he is talking about preparatory actions creating choice or depth, as "control" is not quite the same as choice. Players have a high level of control over the economic outcome in the sense that their skill at executing the fiddly little optimisation has a large role is determining their final "economic number", as you put it.

I think the article is about the mere enjoyment that can be derived from physically issuing commands ('actions'), with examples of a few of the more common types of action. There is fun to be had in simply interacting with game systems, at least if the systems are well designed. The question of whether taking an action is a decision, while present, is not the primary question of the article. The main thesis of the article is that games should provide players with a variety of types of actions.

I think large impact Anticipatory actions is one of the biggest drives for people to play RTS.
Like one of the biggest drives for me is to tinker and discover new tactics and strategies and then executing that strategy in a game and winning. Being able to lure the enemy into a trap feels so good. Part of the enjoyment here can also be Preparatory.
However, large impact Anticipatory actions means that there is small room for a comeback which can arguably be bad for gameplay so I wouldn't say that I know where to draw the line. Also, as the game matures, these traps usually becomes part of the metagame rather than feeling like you fooled or trapped your opponent and it becomes more of a risk vs reward situation

I think most RTS have raising stakes in their game options built into the tech and/or scale progression.
Like you start with basic units with little variation and then more options opens up as you play which have more Rock-Paper-Scissors effects.
Like nukes for example. If a nuke gets through, you probably win the game but if the enemy spends resources to scout they will probably make an anti-nuke in time or they just make an anti-nuke blindly.
Like if you want a game to end, you can have a tech progression or a superweapon that forces the enemys hand and the game is likely to end from there.