Strategy vs. Execution

[brennonbrimhall]

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

I am speaking in generalities, there are shades of gray everywhere in FRC strategy.

Execution is everything. Look at individual robots: would you rather have a robot that's designed to be the best robot ever, but only 50% of its systems work at any given time? Or would you rather have a robot that does half of the game's tasks completely reliably?

I saw the same thing in FSAE during college. There wasn't some secret recipe to making the best/fastest car, year-to-year the winning car/team varied wildly in final product. What the winning teams had in common was great synergy between their various design choices and the cars were built well enough that they didn't fail during a race.

I disagree with your interpretation of strategy as strategic robot design. In the context of this thread, I believe the OP was referring to conferring with alliance partners on a per match basis.

But yes, I agree that at week 6, robots are mostly fixed in functionality. It's also generally better to build a robot that can do one thing awesomely than be mediocre at two things.

Originally Posted by JamesCH95

I think the key here is that almost any strategy is a zero-sum strategy; any offensive move takes away from defense in equal measure, and vice-versa.

Not necessarily, especially this year with a single game piece. Only one robot can possess the ball and actively play offense at a given time, which caps your ability to be offensive, so to speak. There's always hidden opportunities to maximize your strategy.