deaddmwalking wrote: ↑Tue Nov 30, 2021 8:54 pm
You're still complaining about a specific implementation and not
the concept.
And yet it happens again and again in every specific implementation. To the point that I have experienced it so ubiquitously that when you say "but I did play one obscure strategy video game where it DID work right" I just plain don't believe you, especially after some of the light walk back you did in the same post you brought it up.
And when I see multiple specific implementations failing in the same way time and again while attempting or claiming the same thing I don't just blame it on the implementation and imagine a fringe example that could get it right. And I also don't just assume it's impossible.
I go looking for a causal factor.
And it is very clearly a mixture of additional complexities, and design level symmetry not equaling at the table symmetry (or video game abstract rules design symmetry not equaling at the battle instance symmetry).
Even ignoring RPS mechanics Cavalry probably should lose to spear infantry when charging into them head on... and probably should win vs spear infantry when charging into their rear... and Cavalry probably should also be more mobile than spear infantry.
So even if the Spear>Cavalry thing fits nicely into pretend stories about your symmetrical rules balance doings, even before accounting for instanced variation in the availability of good/bad or more/less cavalry or spears your "doing a balance" is ruined the moment you start accounting for any interactions, advantages or counters that are NOT inside your perfect symmetrical RPS dynamic. And it doesn't matter if you look at Cavalry having flanking as a counter to their RPS counter unit type and decide to give something similar to spears
that will only make the situation worse in terms of making the RPS dynamic actually matter.
Essentially once you do have counters and advantages that are not symmetrical or are even part of a separate dynamic, and in any remotely complex game you do, assigning some of them to a symmetrical circle or pattern is cosmetic window dressing that doesn't really matter at all.
And since many designers and gamers often highlight their symmetrical cosmetic window dressing as "doing a balance" or simply being some sort of impressive good thing about their game... people kinda need to realize it isn't really doing anything productive.
Symmetrical RPS dynamics pretty much end their real functionality for balance or meaningful influence on a game outcomes somewhere topping out around the level of a relatively simple board game.
It's not that you shouldn't put an RPS dynamic in your RPG or whatever. It's just that you shouldn't fool yourself that you have achieved anything much meaningful by doing so. Cosmetic window dressing is OK, you just need to know it when you see it/do it.