The thin, blurry line where tactical encounters start to feel like a puzzle

[Thac0]

I think many of the things people say they hate like randomness, leads to deterministic systems. I have noticed on some gaming threads like on Reddit etc there are many people who feel deterministic systems are somehow more 'strategic' and games with too much 'RNG' are 'bad'

IMO that's because there's a huge gap between devs and audience when it comes to RNG. On one hand most players interpret probability in simplistic ways (50% means hitting every other time etc.) while many games implement RNG just awfully , using systems that skew chances in favor of player, to meet their expectations, instead of simply making the spread of outcomes more reasonable. This results in systems that make the weirdest things happen and mechanics which accommodate it happening. 2 knights killing 100 peasants? Sure, that's a 2% chance... Except there's also a system which makes your chances grow with every miss, and eventually, the knights win. In turn, people get annoyed by such improbable RNG results, which were made possible by mechanics designed with the very same people in mind.

The problem is more complicated, those people want those extremely skewed systems.
for the average unthinking consumer has a very different view of statistics. They can grasp 0%, 50% and 100%, but a lot of casual gamers treat 40% hitchance as if it was 20%, 20% as if it was 5%, 70% as if it was 90% and 99% as if it was 100%.
You see a lot more complaints on Steam about rng in games which use simple and accurate randomity systems than in those which use fake randomness meant to emulate the perception of most players.

A relatively large proportion of the world population just can't into statistics, and the tactical gaming market is catering hard to them. Which might or might not be involved in it's current rather sorry state.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

yes people think the guy is just standing there waiting to be shot in the face, but that is not actually what is being represent4ed in a TBS game, yet its nearly impossible to get that across to people-

No, it's not. The reason people think this is because that's what it looks like.
Pause the game while the player is selecting their action rather than having them standing there performing idle animations and other stuff happening.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

yes people think the guy is just standing there waiting to be shot in the face, but that is not actually what is being represent4ed in a TBS game, yet its nearly impossible to get that across to people-

No, it's not. The reason people think this is because that's what it looks like.
Pause the game while the player is selecting their action rather than having them standing there performing idle animations and other stuff happening.

that is what I mean, that is what it looks like, but TB games are really trying to represent real-time with pause even if they don't show that or behave that way, meaning the defender is not 'actually' standing still waiting to be hit. I think we agree basically.

 

[AdamReith]

I would say they are all puzzles but varying degrees of problem space.

In Baldur's Gate for example you have an increasing amount of variables as the game progresses, the problem space becomes huge and you add even more to that by trying to do as many fights as you can without resting or whatever you are into. The puzzle is not really "solved" until everyone is dead because you can have a lightning bolt thrown at your mage at any moment, at the same time there are a huge amount of possible solutions to any problem.

In something like Dragon Age the problem space is reduced in the name of accessibility and it becomes more a non-expanding problem space and more "puzzley" in that respect. You probably find yourself entering a "zone" where the same steps get executed consistently every fight.

The more you reduce the problem space the more puzzley the game becomes and some people are "out of the box" lateral problem solvers and others enjoy rote execution of steps that exist in a restricted space.

The second group of people are ruining everything. Go play sudoku.

 

[JarlFrank]

My problem with this approach is that to get a decent simulation of leadership (that's also what we're here for, right?), there must be a degree of uncertainty of outcome, or else the decision making process involved in this won't matter.

Yep. Fun fact: the earliest wargame we know of, created by the Prussian military as an officer training tool, included randomness in the calculation of combat results to simulate the chaos of the battlefield.

Full determinism is way more gamey than a realistic degree of randomness.

Even highly simulated real time wargames like Men of War, Graviteam Tactics etc include a certain element of randomness, as in you can't be 100% sure where your mortar shells are gonna hit because it's not an accurate weapon. There's a probability of it hitting any point within a certain radius, and it's influenced by things like wind, projectile velocity, angle of the mortar etc etc but the end result for the player is that the hit location isn't 100% predictable. And funnily enough, the more simulationist your game becomes, the less predictable outcomes are. Shooting at enemy knights with longbowmen? Each projectile is simulated individually, half of them may miss the knights and just hit the ground, doing no damage. The others may deflect off armor. A few may penetrate armor. Some may find gaps in the armor and take the knights out of combat. Shooting at an enemy tank with an AT gun? The armor thickness at the specific location you hit matters, as does the angle of impact, and if your shell penetrates it matters what it hits inside of the tank. I like playing MoW Assault Squad 2 with a pal in multi, and tank duels are always fun cause one lucky hit can take our your Tiger if it hits the right spot at just the right angle, while his Sherman might shrug off several AT volleys just because you didn't have the right angle of attack.

While such highly detailed simulations aren't really random as such (a certain missile velocity combined with a certain hit angle and armor thickness will always result in either deflection or penetration), the result for the player is as uncertain as if it were a dice roll. Uncertainty is an integral element of warfare.

 

[ValeVelKal]

Yep. Fun fact: the earliest wargame we know of, created by the Prussian military as an officer training tool, included randomness in the calculation of combat results to simulate the chaos of the battlefield.

Funny trivia : the scenarios that Wilhelm 2 played were heavily unbalanced in his favor, and he liked playing a lot with his generals, up to a point that a member of his staff sent him a memo telling him that the future scenarios need to be more balanced because Germany can’t expect to just waltz in there against Russia or France like they do in the scenarios.

 

[Ol' Willy]

While such highly detailed simulations aren't really random as such (a certain missile velocity combined with a certain hit angle and armor thickness will always result in either deflection or penetration), the result for the player is as uncertain as if it were a dice roll. Uncertainty is an integral element of warfare.

Oh, my man, RNG was introduced in the games exactly because there's a lot of shit to be accounted for in the real life (what you describe in your second paragraph), but coding/implementing each such factor is a nightmare; here we add the hardware/pen 'n paper limitations. RNG plays the role of "in real life some shit may affect this" and even the simplest systems attain a degree of realism.

 

[spectre]

While such highly detailed simulations aren't really random as such (a certain missile velocity combined with a certain hit angle and armor thickness will always result in either deflection or penetration), the result for the player is as uncertain as if it were a dice roll. Uncertainty is an integral element of warfare.

This is a good observation, I also noticed that an extremely detailed simulation engine suffers from "diminishing returns" as after a certain point, the complexity could simply mimic the results arrived from statistics.
However, I think there is still an advantage to developing such a simulation engine - it allows to show the entire process, what exactly came about and what factors were at play to decide the outcome, instead of simply presenting the result.
The smaller the scale, the more desirable this is, while a larger scale might just get away with rolling dice and reading results from the table.

What matters is if the player is able to manage the uncertainty and influence the various factors. No point in simulating them otherwise. I think this is an important point in designing tactical gameplay.
A pitfall to avoid with this is micromanagement hell. I keep getting this with Men of War. While I haven't played an recent installments, the earlier versions compelled me to spend as much time as possible in slo-mo,
managing every shot, because otherwise I felt I wasn't getting the expected performance from my units.

 

[JarlFrank]

While such highly detailed simulations aren't really random as such (a certain missile velocity combined with a certain hit angle and armor thickness will always result in either deflection or penetration), the result for the player is as uncertain as if it were a dice roll. Uncertainty is an integral element of warfare.

Oh, my man, RNG was introduced in the games exactly because there's a lot of shit to be accounted for in the real life (what you describe in your second paragraph), but coding/implementing each such factor is a nightmare; here we add the hardware/pen 'n paper limitations. RNG plays the role of "in real life some shit may affect this" and even the simplest systems attain a degree of realism.

Yep, the dice roll is basically an abstraction of all these factors. So systems with random chance are closer to reality than systems with full determinism, especially if the system is highly abstracted. The higher the level of abstraction, the more you need to represent such battlefield details with dice rolls or other random mechanics. (And even in detailed simulations you have some level of randomness to account for individual soldier behavior: a tank gunner isn't going to aim perfectly all the time, for example).

What matters is if the player is able to manage the uncertainty and influence the various factors. No point in simulating them otherwise. I think this is an important point in designing tactical gameplay.
A pitfall to avoid with this is micromanagement hell. I keep getting this with Men of War. While I haven't played an recent installments, the earlier versions compelled me to spend as much time as possible in slo-mo,
managing every shot, because otherwise I felt I wasn't getting the expected performance from my units.

I find the recent MoW games to handle well enough without micromanagement (I only micro the occasional tank if I wanna go for a particularly bold maneuver), but it's less of a problem of the game's high level of simulation than of its arcadey direct control mode. Look at the Graviteam Tactics games for another highly simulationist series that has less micro (and even more detailed simulation, including unit morale).

For a turn based wargame with a simulationist approach, I can recommend winSPWW2 and winSPMBT.

 

[Endemic]

A relatively large proportion of the world population just can't into statistics, and the tactical gaming market is catering hard to them. Which might or might not be involved in it's current rather sorry state.

That's why 2RN (or hybrid) systems exist.

 

[Curratum]

That's exactly why I don't play "tactical" combat games, RPG or otherwise.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

After a certain point, it's obvious if it's a puzzle game. Enter The Breach comes to mind.

I think that Into the Breach is one of the best tactics/puzzle game in markets.
It does have mostly deterministic systems and I think that developers said that all maps are handmade, which somewhat limits variety it offers, but at the same time there's enough different bots, loot, actions that enemies could make that it doesn't turn into complete rote work immediately like tactical games with deterministic systems too often do.

I think the biggest offenders with tactics vs puzzles cases are games with RNG system that have scenarios that are clearly puzzles with single correct solution, but success still requires dice going perfectly on your favour.

 

[J1M]

I think many of the things people say they hate like randomness, leads to deterministic systems. I have noticed on some gaming threads like on Reddit etc there are many people who feel deterministic systems are somehow more 'strategic' and games with too much 'RNG' are 'bad'

IMO that's because there's a huge gap between devs and audience when it comes to RNG. On one hand most players interpret probability in simplistic ways (50% means hitting every other time etc.) while many games implement RNG just awfully , using systems that skew chances in favor of player, to meet their expectations, instead of simply making the spread of outcomes more reasonable. This results in systems that make the weirdest things happen and mechanics which accommodate it happening. 2 knights killing 100 peasants? Sure, that's a 2% chance... Except there's also a system which makes your chances grow with every miss, and eventually, the knights win. In turn, people get annoyed by such improbable RNG results, which were made possible by mechanics designed with the very same people in mind.

The technical term for the type of randomness that people expect is called "pink noise", where previous results impact future ones.

It is discouraging that so many devs are following the Meier Doctrine that you cannot trust the accuracy percentages you see in games anymore. It would be much healthier if misses translated into miss protection in a way that wasn't hidden from the player.

 

[J1M]

Great thread topic.

Where to draw the line between puzzles and tactics? If you distill this question down to its core I think you will agree that puzzles have binary outcomes and tactical situations have a wide range of outcomes. (A character could die, variable amount of resources exhausted, etc.)

Anything that feeds into a wider range of possible outcomes moves a game away from a puzzle.

For example:
-variable starting conditions determined by other game systems (enemy count, placement, terrain, objectives)
-variable starting conditions determined by randomness
-variable turn outcomes determined by limited player information
-variable turn outcomes determined by randomness
-variable success determined by persistent resources (hp, mana, consumables, time)
-variable success determined by secondary objective completion
-draw outcomes where neither side wins
-failure outcomes that allow the game to continue
-positive and negative feedback loops that impact the chance of success in future encounters (better equipment, injuries)

Some of the most satisfying tactical gaming experiences are those where you take a sub-optimal set of starting conditions and find a way to succeed, specifically because those restrictions amplify the impacts of the above list. (Party comprised entirely of one class, lone wolf, ironman, etc.)

 

[Endemic]

To elaborate on my earlier post, there's more than one way to skew odds towards player expectations. I brought up 2RN, or 2-random number (a standard roll is 1RN). It rolls a second time for accuracy, which has the effect of skewing high percentages upwards and low percentages downwards. For example, a 75% to hit becomes 87.75% under this system, while 1% translates to 0.0003%. There are also hybrids that mix results from 1 and 2RN together, eg using 1RN for lower hitrates but 2RN for higher ones.

 

[laclongquan]

For Fuck's Sake, Do you people even eat a cake?

This thread illustrate very well what game Codexers like to think tactical: aka bad ones. It's not a false declaration when we say Codexers are bad tactical gamers.

When people like me speak on tactical encounters and tactical games, we mean:

Jagged Alliance 2 (okay, some did remember to say it here)
Fallout Tactics (zero)
Icewind Dale 2 (zero)
UFO Aftershock (zero)
UFO Afterlight (zero)
UFO Extraterrestrial (okay, not so great, but it can satiate your tactical need for a time) (zero)
Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels (zero)
Hammer Sickle (zero)

Do you see them getting mentioned here? No? Do you even know what tactical encounters are?

This is like asking mountain people what ocean is.

 

[laclongquan]

Back on topic, with a real example. Let's say Icewind Dale 2

A tactical games generally has a set of answers that can deal with various tactical encounters inside that game. Not one, many. and they vary depend on player's mindset.

Say, you have a battlefield on Frozen March, with some fixed enemies group, and some spawned when you trigger certain scripted traps.

Some players like move cautiously, fight enemies when they appear. This is me in non-HoF mode.

But some like to use rogue to stealthily scout the map and trigger all the traps. Later on using a rogue to draw all the enemies into a prepared ground and deal with them in one fell swoop. This would reduce the time of rest. This tactic is me in Heart of Fury mode, when our level is high and we have plenty in our arsenal. Why the difference? Because things change between games.

So each player has their own set of class combinations, and some swear other class is useless, but that just show that player has no use for that class is all. Some think rogues are useless. but I use Rogue in both non-HoF and Heart of Fury mode extensively. Sure their firepower is not very great, but their utility is way up. In contrast, the much-admired-by-all backstab action? The times I did it in IWD2 can be counted on two hands and I avoid building my rogue toward that tactic.

Is there an optimal answer in Icewind Dale 2? No. If there ever is such thing, it's only on paper. Play that for real is a ball breaker and no fun at all.

 

[ValeVelKal]

For Fuck's Sake, Do you people even eat a cake?

This thread illustrate very well what game Codexers like to think tactical: aka bad ones. It's not a false declaration when we say Codexers are bad tactical gamers.

When people like me speak on tactical encounters and tactical games, we mean:

Jagged Alliance 2 (okay, some did remember to say it here)
Fallout Tactics (zero)
Icewind Dale 2 (zero)
UFO Aftershock (zero)
UFO Afterlight (zero)
UFO Extraterrestrial (okay, not so great, but it can satiate your tactical need for a time) (zero)
Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels (zero)
Hammer Sickle (zero)

Do you see them getting mentioned here? No? Do you even know what tactical encounters are?

This is like asking mountain people what ocean is.

Well, that’s your definition.

First, strategy games have the same problem as what you call tactical games (hence the mention of Unity of Command which IMO is a way better example of the dilemma than you inane IWD example ), second whether you like it or not nuXCOm, Shadow Tactics, Graviteam, Fell Seal are “tactical”.
The Shadow Tactics vs Commando is, again, a way better example of the problem than your “when I am high level enough Rogues become useful to bring the enemies to a killing zone”.

If that’s your best example you have not played a lot of strat. or tactical game

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

For Fuck's Sake, Do you people even eat a cake?

This thread illustrate very well what game Codexers like to think tactical: aka bad ones. It's not a false declaration when we say Codexers are bad tactical gamers.

When people like me speak on tactical encounters and tactical games, we mean:

Jagged Alliance 2 (okay, some did remember to say it here)
Fallout Tactics (zero)
Icewind Dale 2 (zero)
UFO Aftershock (zero)
UFO Afterlight (zero)
UFO Extraterrestrial (okay, not so great, but it can satiate your tactical need for a time) (zero)
Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels (zero)
Hammer Sickle (zero)

Do you see them getting mentioned here? No? Do you even know what tactical encounters are?

This is like asking mountain people what ocean is.

If you want truly monocoled Tactical Combat Play this:


https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29383/gd-42-grossdeutschland

Spoiler

Game is played in 20 minute turns, and you have to actually write out on an operations sheet your battalions commands and objectives and give them attachments and directives for offensives or defense. How quickly the operations can be put into play (or changed) is dependent upon the leader and organization value of the leaders in question, so it might take a few turns to go into affect or might happen more quickly depending on their current level of 'order' and basic underlying level of training. In the meantime the units can only do certain limited things like not move very far, defend their positions and can't conduct combined attacks with friendly units without actual planned written orders orders etc and can't go wandering off in all directions on the map=.... they have to be given attack objectives to do the more 'deadly' organized attacks they are capable of....anyway, its truly monocled wargaming, but its impossible to play in real life unless you don't have a job or something.

Here is an example of an order sheet, they are done on a black and white version of the gameboard and are really not very difficult to do, despite it sounding complicated.

Spoiler

 

[JarlFrank]

For Fuck's Sake, Do you people even eat a cake?

This thread illustrate very well what game Codexers like to think tactical: aka bad ones. It's not a false declaration when we say Codexers are bad tactical gamers.

When people like me speak on tactical encounters and tactical games, we mean:

Jagged Alliance 2 (okay, some did remember to say it here)
Fallout Tactics (zero)
Icewind Dale 2 (zero)
UFO Aftershock (zero)
UFO Afterlight (zero)
UFO Extraterrestrial (okay, not so great, but it can satiate your tactical need for a time) (zero)
Silent Storm, Silent Storm Sentinels (zero)
Hammer Sickle (zero)

Do you see them getting mentioned here? No? Do you even know what tactical encounters are?

This is like asking mountain people what ocean is.

Those are tactical RPGs.

People in this thread have been mostly using tactical squad games and larger military sims/wargames as examples.

There's a massive difference between the games you mentioned, and games like Graviteam Tactics, Total War, Steel Panthers, Panzer General, John Tiller wargames, etc etc. Both feature tactical combat but they're fundamentally different genres.

 

[Horvatii]

Almost as if the game is as malleable and flexible to player action.

OBLIVION is your blues, larper scum
not a single mechanic in x-com rewards agressive play on tac screen, none
at least xcom tried with assaults and flanking

low-cost purchaseable tanks

iggy bin worthy opinion, tanks are by far not lowcost

A nice idea but a false equation.

learn to think, medman, the == is not to chess tactics but the absolutely retarded distinction between puzzles and supposed vidya tactics
a tactics gayme is a puzzle

What some gaylords in this thread call "tactics" is larping and sometimes handholding for every-one-wins snowflakes.
If you make a distinction between "tactics" and puzzle in your head, your hands should be chopped off. For the greater good.
Better yet, lobotomy.

This line of thought reminds me how faggots call Paradox trash strategy games........................... and that absolute shit like EU4 polutes the strategy forums too!

 

[Horvatii]

to get a decent simulation of leadership (that's also what we're here for, right?

??? no ???
to be the chosen one and everyone is waiting for you
to fight and to win and to accept treasure
and to accept love and to rule the hidden world
of awesomeness like the hadnsome littel asshotle that you are
it happens all the time, right?

 

[Horvatii]

ValeVelKal, open your mouth pathtic faggot

 

[Thac0]

learn to think, medman, the == is not to chess tactics but the absolutely retarded distinction between puzzles and supposed vidya tactics
a tactics gayme is a puzzle

What some gaylords in this thread call "tactics" is larping and sometimes handholding for every-one-wins snowflakes.
If you make a distinction between "tactics" and puzzle in your head, your hands should be chopped off. For the greater good.
Better yet, lobotomy.

This line of thought reminds me how faggots call Paradox trash strategy games........................... and that absolute shit like EU4 polutes the strategy forums too!

Do you agree that there is a gameplay difference between a game of chess and a chess board state you have to solve in a limited amount of turns (a chess puzzle)?

If yes, why is that distinction not applicable to vidya? The Talos principle is absolutely not in the same genre as Battle Brothers.

In a puzzle you search for one specific solution that solves the scene. You looks at different angles to get at that solution, but at the gameplay ends as soon as you have the solution.
In a tactics game you search for all possible good turns you can find, then weigh them against each other, to find your hopefully best possible turn.

Your path sounds like semantics for the same of semantics, from the same thought school of people who claim stuff like "Every RPG from Japan is a JRPG and no JRPGs outside of Japan exist" and "Zelda is an rpg because you play a role".

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

I think comparing Incubation: Time is Running Out (1997) with Chaos Gate (1998) might offer some insight in puzzle vs tactics question.

While both are squad based tactics games with sci-fi theme from 90s with campaigns with fixed missions (in Chaos Gate you can grind xp in random battles).
In both games you have persistent soldiers that gather XP etc.

Typical level in Incubation is tight maze and gameplay typically centers around managing overwatch fire so that enemies don't get to swarm your squad to death before you've done your objective.


Whereas Chaos Gate offers lot's of straight brawls where huge (for squad based tactics game) forces just slug it out.