Are you a man (or woman) with a plan or do you just go with the flow?

[Mizywill]

Warning: Post thread title change, previously "Are you a Strategic or Reactive player? ... Primarily"

---

I was just playing a game, link posted blow, that got me to thinking there are basically two types of players, strategic and reactive. I know we all use a bit of both but i believe that we tend to lean one way or the other.

I believe the strategic player goes into the game with a plan for each map and tries to plan ahead by at least 2 or 3 moves. They also look for the strategy the other guy is employing, which isn't always a good move in case there isn't one. These guys may spend 30 minutes or more on a move, maybe go back to it the next day.

The other player is more reactive. Sure they may plan the first move and employ a little strategy here and there but their overall reaction time averages less than 5 minutes and they hardly, not never, think more than maybe one move ahead.

I would definetly call myself more of a reactive player. This being said, I still don't know how I won the following game. The best I can think is that the guy had a strategy he thought couldnt fail and overlooked the obvious. I looked up my opponents stats and he's ranked gifted #1 in his league by at least over 400 points from the next guy, around 800 points. I'm about a #20 gifted with around 180 points or so...

Click here to see game.

So, let me know if you agree with the two player types and post which type of player you feel you are. I would love to hear others opinions on this and the linked game.

Thanks

---

Warning: post thread title change, previously "Are you a Strategic or Reactive player? ... Primarily"

[Bluegodzill]

I'd call myself more of a reactive player. I'm guessing what you're trying to say is that reactive players go with the flow? Well, I've had 65 wins so there's nothing wrong with going with the flow.

[Mizywill]

You got it, and a good way to word it.

[Harti]

A good player needs to be both.

[Mizywill]

Yes. I agree that you need to be both but, and I could be wrong, I think you are more one than the other. Maybe it comes down to patience and intuition.

[Glorishears]

Until you face better competition, being reactive is the easy way to win -- stockpile units and a few extra wits, then wait for your opponent to make a poorly thought out attack. Once you're up two soldiers, just roll them back to their base.

Obviously if your opponent doesn't make mistakes, you need a better plan.

[Mizywill]

I think Bluegodzill said it best with "going with the flow." So use ths in place of "reactive" when thinking of replies. I also go with the flow ...

I don't think much past the next move unless it's utterly obvious and don't have any set starter moves either. I just think "hmmm, what do I feel like today" and try not to do something terribly stupid.

Also, another defining characteristic between the two approaches is move time. The go with low rye probably ont take much more than 5 minutes, and us may be pushing it. Yes, you may have to kick into strategic mode when you're in a real, but what approach got you into that bind?

[nivra0]

I completely disagree. I think having a strategy is crucial to succeeding in games like these. It's pretty classic in chess: You have to have a plan and at least try and implement it. Yes, you adjust and you defend to what your opponent is doing, but the winner is usually the one who implements their strategy the best.

In Outwitters, it's the same. Long Nine is a great example. Do you defend bottom and attack top with runners and soldiers? Do you defend top with soldiers and/or snipers and push bottom? Maybe you decide on a strategy of sneaking hits on the base with runners. If you go with one strategy and then abandon it and go with another constantly, you end up losing games against equally skilled players who have a strategy.

Reactive tends to win because most players don't plan well or don't execute will at this level. At higher levels, strategic planning is essential. Then reactivity to be able to adjust the strategy to the opponents' moves.

[metalsquid]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I am a strategic player by your definition, I plan ahead by 2 or 3 turns from the outset. (I take 5-10 mins not half a day!) But this almost always changes after a few turns because you never know what your opponent will do beforehand. So you have to be reactionary to some degree.

But in reacting, I still think 2 or 3 turns ahead though they will now have changed from the moves I had planned earlier. If you never keep the ultimate goal of destroying the other base in mind when planning your moves and only react to the latest immediate threat, you're just allowing the opponent to keep you under constant pressure while he gets closer to destroying yours. eg. If he only needs 2 or 3 wits to move his units into position, forcing you to spend 6 or 7 wits defending against them, then he knows you can't counter-attack and he's still got 3 or 4 wits left to attack elsewhere or save for the next turn.

I echo Harti's succinct one-liner above.

[Mizywill]

(07-17-2012 09:09 AM)Mizywill Wrote:  I know we all use a bit of both but i believe that we tend to lean one way or the other

Odd I have to resort to quoting my first post, but this is basically the whole point of the thread. I agree with the posts that you need both, but still stick to my guns that your Primarily one or the other.

(07-17-2012 05:43 PM)metalsquid Wrote:  If you never keep the ultimate goal of destroying the other base in mind when planning your moves and only react to the latest immediate threat

Not sure I advocated abandoning this concept. I myself always keep this in mind and I like to think I'm not just eliminating the threats but also advancing towards my goal and imposing new ones.

(07-17-2012 05:43 PM)metalsquid Wrote:  (I take 5-10 mins not half a day!) But this almost always changes after a few turns because you never know what your opponent will do beforehand.

But in reacting, I still think 2 or 3 turns ahead though they will now have changed from the moves I had planned earlier.

I love strategy, I employ it constantly, all the time. But I would have to say that my scales tilt more to the "go with the flow" style of play as I would say yours do too from what you're saying. You said according to me you are a strategic player but in my mind the strategic player knows the entire, hopefully, plan of attack from the get go. He/she knows there will be changes and they have to adapt of course but they try to fit theses adaptations into a new strategy.

I think it comes down to this, you're strategic, primarily, if when you start the game you know, or think you knw, exactly how you are going to kill the other guys base and what units you're going to do it with, as long as things go according to plan that is.

I would love a comment on this game. I could be wrong but I think this guy's strategy blinded him to my attacks. I think he was too focused and from my belief he is the strategic player, not so much reactive. He may of thought, and this is speculation here, this is a winning strategy, no needed to worry.

I really am loving the feedback and opinions but give extra kudos to those claiming one or the other and not stating the obvious and easy response, "I'm both of course." hey, maybe it's true, your the perfect blend of both.

---

Just thinking, maybe my concept of the strategic player doesn't exist for this game and no-one fully plans out games they way I think they might. I know they exist for such wonderful games as Chess, Checkers and Go and I also know that in these games a strategic player may have difficulties with one that doesn't have an equally planned strategy because it's more difficult to get into their heads and predict their moves. In my understanding real strategic players an almost control each others moves leaving the end game to the better strategist, after all each move should be logical with prepanned responses, and here's the kicker that makes it strategic and not reactive in my opinion, that work towards a specific end game.