Somewhat silly question for old timers..

[Mánagarmr]

Well then, apparently I don't blob in AI Wars.  Who knew!

Congrats! The difference is that in AI:War, blobbing is a very functional tactic. Try mindless blobbing in any other RTS and it might not work so well. SC2 is just an example where it goes wrong REALLY fast if you do mindless blobbing.

[Wingflier]

@Kahuna - most of the videos you posted, the person "blobbing" had a massively superior force to the losing player, so he could afford to simply keep them all in a group and A-Click to win.  None of the videos you posted were using professional games as far as I could tell either, so there's never been any argument that the lower level of play is inclusive of blobbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRlPUN73uXo&t=8m48s

In this one the Terran's army is vastly superior to the Protoss Army.  Also, the Protoss doesn't have any of the "anti-blobbing" spells they would need to defeat this force:  The two primary ones being Psionic Storm or Force Fields.  Therefore considering the Terran's vastly superior economic force, blobbing made for an easy win.  In pretty much any strategy game I know (except maybe Total Annihilation), A-Clicking into an enemy's base with a vastly superior force will win you the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRlPUN73uXo&t=8m48s

Once again, a case of a massively superior army blobbed against a crappier one.  To be honest, if the Terran player had separated his units a little better he might have lived longer, but he didn't stand much of a chance either way.  2 Colossi, 2 Immortals, and a small group of Stalkers, Sentries, and Zealots, vs. a handful of pure Marine Marauder is going to be a massacre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-QupXMBzsU&t=7m19s

Another massively inferior force blobbed against a superior one; he even comments on the danger of expanding too quickly.  As you can see, the Terran player even surrounded the Protoss Army in many places, pushing his first wave back with a force that never should have been able to do that.  So this video to me shows how effective micromanaging your units can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8neoxqAdUaQ&t=6m37s

How can you say this one was blobbed?  The Protoss player had to create every Forcefield almost simultaneously in that situation.  Also, army was vastly superior in terms of cost and the Terran player shouldn't have tried to fight around the Force Fields.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziWA1tTIvy4&t=6m13s

Massively superior force, no comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7LVhDHj9o4&t=7m16s

Don't know how you can say this was blobbing.  This was a mixture between abusing an elevation mechanic to exploit the Marine's small range, constantly warping in new units, and also having a vastly superior army in terms of cost.  I don't know if you understand this, but Marines cost 50 Minerals, that's it.  An Immortal Costs 250 Minerals and 100 gas.  The cost of 1 Immortal is basically the cost of 7 or 8 Marines.  A Stalker is 125 Minerals 50 Gas, that's basically the cost of 3-4 Marines.  A Sentry costs 50 Minerals and 100 gas, that's about the cost of 2-3 Marines.  If the Terran's army of Marines and Marauders does not handily outnumber the Protoss force, they are in trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DUvgUSCzKc&t=6m5s

Zerglings used to surround Probes and Stalkers...I don't see a problem here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-7fNNdt5IM&t=7m34s

This is probably the worst example you gave, do you not see him individually blinking back his Stalkers when they take damage?  Or blinking back his army when they're in trouble?  There is a lot of micromanagement going on here.

Your videos fell into 2 categories:
1. 1 person's army is so vastly superior it doesn't need to be microed.
2. A person's army is being microed, you just don't realize it.

This is what happens when you blob in pro games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFIy83PLFR8

This is what it looks like when pro players micromanage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdSKD3LRHV8

[keith.lamothe]

Which brings up one of the key points about blobbing: in a game which focuses on strategy instead of tactics, you generally should try to win an engagement before it happens, by simply concentrating overwhelming force.  That doesn't remove the need for tactical decisions, but properly done it makes it so that neither side can affect who-wins by their tactical decisions (unless the guy with more force does something totally braindead).

In fact, many games on the grand-strategy scale don't have "tactical combat" at all, in the sense of something the player can see and/or micro.

[Mánagarmr]

*stuff*

I have nothing to add here.

In fact, many games on the grand-strategy scale don't have "tactical combat" at all, in the sense of something the player can see and/or micro.

AI:War doesn't require much micro because your units are generally doing the best they can anyway, so at tops, you'll place them differently, such as keeping bombars and frigates in the back, while charging with heavier units. So, in short...is there really a problem here? Okay, now I'm rambling...

[Wingflier]

Which brings up one of the key points about blobbing: in a game which focuses on strategy instead of tactics, you generally should try to win an engagement before it happens, by simply concentrating overwhelming force.

This is true, but the dichotomy of AI War is that your opponent always has the overwhelming force ;p

It's not that the player doesn't use tactics in AI War, they just don't seem to be very dynamic. 

1. Wake up the planet.
2. Bring them to my planet.
3. Let the turrets slaughter them.
4. Profit...

It could be made to where each situation has to be dealt with very differently.  That doesn't necessarily mean a lot more micromanagement is involved, it just means better planning and more strategies in how to deal with the opponent's particular force.  Though I will admit that the recent changes have definitely pushed the game in that direction

In fact, many games on the grand-strategy scale don't have "tactical combat" at all, in the sense of something the player can see and/or micro.

I've never played a grand strategy game where micromanagement still didn't make a major difference.  That could just be me though.

In games like Supreme Commander 1 and 2,  Homeworld 1 and 2, Age of Empires Series, and all other "grand strategy" RTS games I can think of, micromanaging your units isn't necessary to success, but the winner often does come down to who can do it better.

[keith.lamothe]

AI:War doesn't require much micro because your units are generally doing the best they can anyway, so at tops, you'll place them differently, such as keeping bombars and frigates in the back, while charging with heavier units.

There's actually a ton of micro you can do to optimize combat results, particularly against AOE (approach zenith beam frigates with all your ships in a circle around it, etc), but in general the marginal benefit from doing so does not outweight the marginal cost in wall-time in the evaluation of most players.  And the autotargeting, while pretty good, isn't necessarily going to make the best decision for your particular purposes.

So, in short...is there really a problem here? Okay, now I'm rambling...

An actual problem?  I don't think so.  It's a strategy game.  There's some tactical depth that sets it apart from a game with abstract combat resolution, and it's fun to watch and intervene (and in lots of situations the intervention is vital, just not so much in the huge fleet-vs-fleet combat).

But there's room for improvement.  To get back a bit towards the original topic:
- Some players really like AIW just like it is.
- Some players want AIW to be more like Master of Orion or other good 4X space games.
- Some players want AIW to be more like Starcraft or other good RTS games.
- Some players want AIW to be more like... insert game here, really.

None of those is really invalid, though we can't really fully embrace the positions that want the game to be... well, a different game.  But we can try to figure out what's really making those itches itch, and find out how to scratch them.

Which brings up one of the key points about blobbing: in a game which focuses on strategy instead of tactics, you generally should try to win an engagement before it happens, by simply concentrating overwhelming force.

This is true, but the dichotomy of AI War is that your opponent always has the overwhelming force ;p

The total number of ships the enemy has is basically irrelevant to an engagement.  How many do they have on that planet (or near enough and willing to reinforce, as with the new special forces logic)?  That's what matters.

So AIW is very much a game of taking your overall-inferior forces and establishing pockets of local overwhelming-superiority at key moments until you can do it again for all the marbles.

In games like Supreme Commander 1 and 2,  Homeworld 1 and 2, Age of Empires Series, and all other "grand strategy" RTS games I can think of, micromanaging your units isn't necessary to success, but the winner often does come down to who can do it better.

I was thinking of games like Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Axis and Allies, Civilization, Dominions 3, etc.  There are varying degrees to how much you can influence the actual battle tactics in those, of course, but that's what I was thinking of.  Not "grand strategy RTS" (though I guess EU/HoI are real-time in that they're not turn-based), just "grand strategy".  One thing that may interest you is that AIW was actually a turn-based game for part of the alpha phase.

[KDR_11k]

I don't think there's a point in arguing against blobbing until we know what alternative we're going to argue for. I can't think of one but maybe you can.

[Wingflier]

But there's room for improvement.  To get back a bit towards the original topic:
- Some players really like AIW just like it is.
- Some players want AIW to be more like Master of Orion or other good 4X space games.
- Some players want AIW to be more like Starcraft or other good RTS games.
- Some players want AIW to be more like... insert game here, really.

None of those is really invalid, though we can't really fully embrace the positions that want the game to be... well, a different game.  But we can try to figure out what's really making those itches itch, and find out how to scratch them.

Well to me, there's a way to satisfy most of these cravings while keeping the game true to everybody.

We've already dealt with the schizophrenic reinforcement logic, now if we actually made Guardians into Steel Titans, who you deeply fear to awake, you add something for everybody.  The highest difficulties become extremely difficult because with the higher Guardian spawn rates, you have to learn how to take a planet without awaking them all at once, then dealing with them individually with their own personal counters.

On the medium difficulties blobbing is still fairly effective, though thinking tactically and strategically on how to deal with Guardians will make your force much more useful.

On the medium-low difficulties you can basically blob the way you do now without any major drawbacks.

On the lowest difficulties Guardians don't exist.

Basically, the "difficulty" of the game right now hinges on, "How do deal with an AI force that is constantly outnumbering mine", and the answer is almost ALWAYS some variation of separating them and bringing them into your turrets.

With powerful but rare Guardians, the difficulty of the game changes to, "How do I win each engagement by tearing the AI's force apart piece by piece, without alerting all the Guardians at once?"  In other words, "stirring the hornet's nest" would be an extremely bad idea, as even heavily defended planets would be vulnerable to a massive Guardian attack.

In the end, the skills required to play the hardest difficulty are going to hinge on SOMETHING.  I think it's a much better design decision to base them on dynamic strategy and tactics against constantly changing situations rather than, "How can I best place my defenses?"

That's just me though, I'm sure lots of people like it the way it is.  My point is that even with the changes I propose you could still play that way, you'd just have to use a lower difficulty.

[Mánagarmr]

I'm very satisfied with the game as it is, tbh, though I agree guardians could probably use a buff and reduction in numbers. That'd turn them into something a touch more dangerous.

[Kahuna]

If someone doesn't like blobbing that person shouldn't play 4x games.

[Wingflier]

That's a pretty overgeneralized statement which probably only applies to yourself.  Not all 4x games encourage blobbing.

Not that AI War would fit into the classic definition of a 4x game anyway, since most 4x games have some sort of diplomacy.

[chemical_art]

What is blobbing exactly?

[Mánagarmr]

I think the definition of blobbing is dependent on who you are. To some, it's simply a bunch of units against a smaller bunch of units. To others, it's the lack of micro in a bunch of units.

To me, "blobbing", is lack of tactics in favor of raw firepower. If you don't need to think and can just send your "blob" of ships against the enemy ships without any risk of losing anything significant, that is blobbing.

[PokerChen]

AI War: the game in which you *are* encouraged to 1a2a3a4a5a...

[KDR_11k]

Simply selecting your full cap of ships and sending them over to another planet, possibly even using FRD if you want to be extra lazy.