>>16445287
>You outline simplistic arguments that reduce a game down to x, removing all context.
Was the premise literally "these are the only strats that are exactly same across all RTS games"? Either way if you were to pick something like that, you should've picked the micro autism instead, because that would at least somewhat apply and I would at least agree to an extent to your framing of my argument.
>Your dichotomies for example are all arbitrary
That doesn't suddenly exempt them from being dichotomy. Also, it isn't really that arbitrary, I could've been more clear in stating that those generally apply to units (for the exception of competitive vs casual, obviously), but next you are arguing out of that premise, so no, not really.
Do I really need to outline that fast beats slow, ranged beats melee etc thus when units are created and placed into the system by the developers they mix and match these, usually extremely polarizing characteristics to create balance (for simplicity sake imagine scales with weights where "flaws" are 0s and "advantages" are 1s)?
Invisibility works a bit different, but the same as an example of dichotomy design system. If you have invisibility, you make enemy army useless, if enemy has proper scouting/visibility tools it makes your invis units useless.
>It costs resources to perform an action, it costs resources to take a course of action, it takes time, there can be more than one resource something costs, there are opportunity costs to an investment. Going for x if your opponent isn't anti-x is a different decision than if your opponent is.
If I reframe your statement like this and agree with it, making it a context for every single strat I've outlined, would that change anything?
>…invisible scouts and invisible battleships are different things to contend with…
The difference here comes from described units being of different type, rather than being of different x (invisible) type. Just include anti-invis and it becomes pretty much the same as type1 vs type2, with a reminder that invisible battle units are weaker than visible ones simply due to how dichotomy balancing works.
>>see stealth units
>>build anti-stealth
>isn't accurate because…
Even if I really was framing my argument like you are describing it to be framed as, your counterargument doesn't prove it any wrong whatsoever.
>>tech rush and spam
Yeah, should've said "then" instead of "and", however "and" is the more accurate representation of the progression pendulum. And you are arguing against "or".
>This is what I mean by low level of analysis, it isn't complex enough to accurately represent what is happening.
Well, the assumption is that complexity is more or less (as in, equivalent in principle) comparable to that of a game of any other genre (i.e. this is a neutral stance) and that it's reasonable of one to assume to fill in the blanks within the outline I have setup.
The burden of providing required level of complexity to prove a (non neutral) point is on OP and, by proxy, on you.
>The strategy in strategy games comes from the same place it does in every game, reading the situation and making appropriate decisions.
>from the same place it does in every game
Case in point.
>You say a bunch of things, but what kind of arguments are you expecting to get?
Exactly the ones I am receiving, because, akhem, the literal or lower level understanding of arguments themselves isn't complex enough to accurately represent what I am actually arguing for (or against) which is exactly my intention, since it's setup in such a way, that each instance of misunderstanding from which follows a proactive position - validates my initial claim.
While that can be seem as dishonest and in bad faith, I have not applied (at least intentionally) any level of obfuscation, didn't intentionally lead anyone to wrong conclusions and I do not intend to extrapolate the conclusion beyond its actual reach.