Mixed strategies add a layer of psychological warfare to games, keeps you guessing your opponent's moves. It's all about that delicious Nash equilibrium, after all. For RTS, there could be random events or map changes that force players to switch strategies, not just unit types. More dynamic gameplay imo.

Board games often have mechanics that force players to switch tactics, and it's super engaging. Video games could take a leaf out of that book. Designing around mixed strategies would keep the meta fresh and games more replayable for sure.

I'm kinda new to RTS games but isn't mixing up units the point? At least, that's what I've been trying to do... Should I not be? 😕

Honestly, mixed strategies are what separates good players from great ones in many games. Chess, poker, even MOBAs rely on unpredictability to some extent. But in RTS? Not so much, since they're more about macro and micro-skills. Still, a game that rewarded adaptive playstyles over cookie-cutter ones would be sweet.

Mixed strategies? Why bother when I can just steamroll with one OP unit. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, lol.

Game dev here. Incorporating mixed strategies sounds great in theory, but it's a balancing nightmare. Plus, players often find a meta anyways. We do try to encourage variety, but sometimes the community just leans into whatever's most efficient.

Mixed strategies are cool and all, but some people play to win using best strats, not leave it up to chance. I get the appeal, but it could mess competitive play unless balanced just right.

ikr? Games need to be less about spamming the best unit and more about adapting on the fly. Strategizing + randomness = intense gameplay. Devs gotta step up their game.