[2022] The New Meta

This statement is extremely reductive. You could similarly say that soccer (or football to non-Americans) is simply a matter of scoring. Teamwork? Plays? Defensive concepts? The only thing that matters is scoring more than the enemy, because scoring means you win. This can be true in a reductive sense, however it leaves out the nuance of what happened at what times during the match and what plays occurred dynamically as a result.

In a WoWs sense, it's the equivalent of saying "Just sink the enemy" and then following it up with "I'm good at sinking the enemy, so I'll just go do that a lot." It may function as desired an amount of time, but... Plays? Defensive Concepts? Depth? If you're electing to reduce the game to a damage counter DPS-race then the game isn't a game so much as a background for playing whack-a-mole. I'll grant you that you might not be receiving higher-order teamwork in a Random Battle, but you can still assess the situation around you and determine what is likely to happen and what is the best solution to the "Random Problem" that is being generated on the fly.

By definition, War is about winning and not being at all concerned about the fairness inherent in the pursuit. Simulations that put tanks against soldiers that have nothing that can damage the tank tend to result in the tank taking the field. For the player deploying the tank, they gain ground. For the player who held the territory with infantry, they lost ground and infantry. To one player, it was a great victory, the other a defeat.

There's a saying that goes something like, "You should never take a fair fight, because you might lose."

True symmetry is fairly hard to find. Even Checkers isn't truly symmetric because one side starts before the other. In order to have true Symmetry in CounterStrike, all players would need to be using the same loadouts as opposed to having a variety of weapons to diversify their team and roles to handle the situations they will be facing. Fighting games would consist of having one option for people to play as opposed to entire rosters of choices and all the dynamic outcomes that come with that.

The point that Arlskandir makes earlier in the thread is that of a "Random Problem Generator". There are games that exist which model this concept such as Into the Breach which do allow for some amount of expectation prior to what occurs but are ultimately the result of what situation gets formed at the start of each cycle. Your purpose in the game is to assess the situation as it comes and try to find the best way forward. Some situations will be clear, others won't, and there is never a gaurantee of it being correct or easy.

Earlier in the thread there have been comments about how WoWs is just an FPS game which seems baffling to me. Our game does rely on shooting via skillshots, but each minute is a new instance of "Random Problem Generator" in the sense that Random Battles feeds you Random Enemies and Random Allies, both of which will do both predictable and unpredictable things. Regardless of how sensible the actions taken, you are still presented with a scenario where you must make a decision ("Pop quiz hotshot!"). The core of so many Wargame scenario are that you are jumping into a situation... things are sane or crazy... your units are fresh or worn... the enemy is fresh or worn... your are surrounded on X sides... ... ... ... annnnnnnnnd Go! Armchair General engaged, good luck.

If you don't see the game in terms of snap-shots in a scenario, then go play a Random Battle. Afterward, load up the Replay and stop it once a minute. Look at the map and think, "What happens next?" for each of the pieces on the board. Think of what should happen for your team to win... for their team to win... then move forward a minute and do it again. Suddenly you have a turn-based strategy map where some of the enemies and teammates are "AI" and you are stuck making the best decisions you can with your one piece that's caught in the storm.