u/Turbulent-EpsiKopath

For independent studios, launching a multiplayer wargame is often difficult because the player base is usually small, especially at launch and within an already niche genre. This creates a real matchmaking dilemma.

Waiting for opponents with a similar level of experience should lead to better matches. But if matchmaking is too strict, players may wait a long time or find no one at all. Widening the skill range allows more matches to begin, but it can also place a newcomer against someone who has already mastered the rules.

This imbalance becomes even more problematic when an asynchronous or PBEM match can last for several days or weeks. Losing a fifteen-minute match is one thing. Committing to a long campaign that was unbalanced from the start is another.

The system could gradually widen the acceptable skill range, show each player’s experience before they accept the match, or use scenario balancing and handicaps. But each of these solutions has drawbacks.

So what do you think is the best approach?

Back in the early 2010s, a friend and I learned StarCraft II by playing against each other.

After enough matches, we reached the dangerous conclusion that we were pretty good (at least against each other). So we confidently queued for our first online 2v2 against strangers.

Caught up in the excitement, we were already discussing the unstoppable late-game army we were going to build and almost completely forgot to scout.

By the time our opponents reached our bases, most of that unstoppable army still existed only in our heads.

Our first online 2v2 lasted less than three minutes. So much for our late-game strategy lol.

Some strategy games humble you in three minutes. Others let you play for hours before you realize the game was lost long ago.

In some strategy games, once you reveal an enemy force, that information stays visible and may continue to update.

But what if scouting only gave you a snapshot?

A scouting report could be completely accurate when you receive it. Before you act (or before the next phase resolves), troops might arrive, leave or reorganize. To know the current situation, you would have to scout again.

Surveillance could complement this by warning you that movement or preparations for an attack had been detected, without revealing exactly what had changed. A player could even issue an attack order and then cancel it, using a false alarm to confuse enemy surveillance.

This could make intelligence and deception more meaningful. But if every important attack requires checking surveillance and scouting again, it could quickly become repetitive busywork.

Which would you prefer: enemy information that stays updated once revealed, or accurate snapshots supported by surveillance alerts?

The term “wargame” is often associated with historical conflicts, real military units and an attempt to simulate warfare as accurately as possible.

But what if a science-fiction game uses many of the same systems: territorial control, logistics, combined arms, limited intelligence, command decisions and operational planning?

Does the fictional setting make it a strategy game rather than a wargame? Or should the genre be defined by its mechanics and the way it models conflict, regardless of whether the war actually happened?

Where do you personally draw the line between a wargame and a strategy game?

Great visuals can draw my attention to a strategy game. But they’re rarely what makes it memorable.

A visually modest game can still create unforgettable moments when your opponents are other players—negotiating, bluffing, adapting, betraying one another, remembering what happened in previous matches, and sometimes even becoming friends along the way.

On the other hand, even a visually stunning strategy game can still fall flat in terms of gameplay and enjoyment.

I’m not saying graphics don’t matter. A strategy game still needs a strong visual identity, clear information, and a world players want to spend time in. But once that foundation is there, visual spectacle alone cannot create the unpredictability, rivalries, friendships, and stories that emerge between players.

The "Dominions" series comes to mind. Its visuals have always been modest compared with most strategy games, yet its depth and multiplayer interactions have built a remarkably dedicated community. In a game like that, diplomacy, bluffing, alliances, betrayal—and even the friendships formed along the way—can matter far more than visual spectacle.

Would strong player interaction be enough to keep you playing a strategy game without cutting-edge graphics?

Or would its appearance stop you before those stories ever had a chance to exist?

What is the minimum acceptable visual standard for you?

I've been thinking about this recently.

Every game genre seems to have one design problem that nobody has completely solved.

• For FPS games, it might be matchmaking.
• For MMOs, it could be repetitive grinding.
• For strategy games... I'm not sure we've found the answer yet.

I'm not talking about bugs or balance.

I mean a problem that almost every strategy game still struggles with, no matter how good it is.

For me, it's keeping every player engaged until the very end of a match.

What do you think is the hardest design problem strategy games still haven't solved... and why?

Players usually stop caring when they feel their decisions no longer matter. Once the outcome feels inevitable, the remaining turns become a formality.

Am I wrong?

What usually makes you mentally check out before a strategy match actually ends?

I've been thinking about this recently.

Years later, I rarely remember the matches I won because I optimized my economy or made all the right moves.

What I remember are the desperate alliances.

The betrayals.

The impossible comebacks.

The last stand that somehow worked.

For me, the most memorable strategy games are the ones that create stories you'll still be telling years later.

What about you?

What's the one multiplayer strategy match you'll probably never forget... and why?

Most multiplayer strategy games are designed to be finished in a single session.

But I've been wondering whether that's actually the best format.

Imagine a game where you only spend 10–15 minutes a day.

You log in.

Review what happened while you were away.

Issue military orders.

Negotiate with other players.

Manage your economy.

Then log off while the world keeps evolving.

Imagine logging in one morning and discovering that the ally you trusted yesterday secretly funded the empire invading you today.

The obvious downside is that people go on vacation, lose interest, or simply get busy.

But the upside is that diplomacy and long-term planning could become much more meaningful.

Would you play a multiplayer strategy game built around that idea?

If yes, what would convince you?

If not, what's the biggest reason?