Why do you prefer strategy over tactics? Do you consider one more difficult than the other?

[KainenMorden]

Title says it all, interested in monocled opinions here.

I loved both growing up but preferred tactics games, not sure why exactly. I suppose they seemed more engaging? Also, as a kid/young teen, I'd often get confused on what needed to be done in a strategy game and felt tactics games were more straightforward.

 

[luj1]

Always liked tactics more

PS make this a poll bro wtf

 

[KainenMorden]

I don't believe in polls/elections anymore, sorry.

Can you explain why you prefer tactics?

 

[octavius]

I like both.
Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might&Magic, and OpenXcom are among my favouritest games, and surely the games I spent most time on this year.

But generally I guess I prefer tactics, and I have more tolerance for games that are linear on a global/strategic level, than on a tactical level (individual maps/dungeons).

 

[luj1]

I don't believe in polls/elections anymore, sorry.

Can you explain why you prefer tactics?

More exciting

 

[spectre]

Can't say I definitely prefer one over the other. Depends what's the itch today, because the experience usually is the opposite.
I don't want to make claims about inherent level of complexity, because it depends entirely on the game, but the key distinction is planning for the long term vs. immediate decisions with immediate results.
Each has its appeal.
The second big thing is that the tactical level feels more personal, i.e. being down there in the dirty, exactly the opposite of what you get on the strategic layer.

 

[JarlFrank]

I prefer tactics because I want to command armies on the battlefield, not deal with big picture logistics. My ideal strategy game combines both, of course, like Total War which is turn based strategy with a real time tactical layer. But the focus is on the tactical battles. My favorite strategy games all work like that: a strategic layer to give context and meaning to the battles, but the focus is on the tactical battle layer.

Graviteam Tactics and Steel Division have an operational layer where you move armies around, but the meat is the tactical engagements.
Total War is grand strategy lite, with the focus on the battles.
Field of Glory II is turn based tactics with a simple abstracted campaign layer.
Grand Tactician: Civil War has a pretty in-depth strategic layer (much more so than Total War) but the real meat is the battles.
Etc etc.

I want to command armies, perform enveloping flanking maneuvers, defend points of strategic value, see the effects of cavalry charges or artillery strikes, develop effective combined arms tactics, etc.
Tactical games (or strategy games with a tactical layer) give me exactly that.
Pure strategy games like Paradox games or Civilization are too abstract at the combat layer. All I do is move armies around a big world map, watch them collide, and then an underlying algorithm does all the fighting for me. I still enjoy playing those games, but the lack of proper battles is always disappointing. I want to march little men around a detailed battlefield and watch them kill each other, not just abstract army blobs rolling the dice two times and that's it.

My ideal strategy game would be a Paradox style grand strategy with Total War style battles. Or a Civilization style 4X with Total War style battles. But grand strategy and 4X games rarely add a tactical combat layer. It's always abstract and boring. You don't get to play the general, you only get to play the logistics officer who makes sure the armies get where they need to and have enough supplies to make it through the day. The only exception are 4X games set in space, for some reason. Those often give you a tactical layer to fight out battles.

 

[Galdred]

I like games that mix both. That is why Master of Orion, X-COM and Master of Magic are among my top5 (and Total War, but I have a lot of issues with the series).
I like to make decisions about the weapons I will bring to a fight, then fight with said weapons.

 

[KainenMorden]

Do you think field of glory ii is one of the most complex tactics games around?

 

[Norfleet]

I don't honestly see the difference. It's a vidya game. I'm still moving pieces around a map. It's just a question of what those pieces represent and the scaling factor of the map. The one advantage strategery offers is that because you never look too closely at any of the pieces, the demand for YE GRAPHICS is lower.

 

[Dadd]

I prefer the abstraction of battles in strategy games. With direct control of battles in tactics, it's harder to convey large-scale battles satisfyingly.

 

[adrix89]

Strategy Games are retardo brainded bad on the combat level.
They focus on Economy, Progression(Tech Tree) and Army movement which is the wrong things they should focus on.
They should focus on Supply and Resource Logistics and Fortifications, that is what a "Strategic" game is supposed to be, not that colonization cancer.
The problem is the only Strategy games that are "proper" are Wargames and they are damn slow to play and limited in terms of scenarios and flexibility.

Tactics Games is the only combat the dumb developers can understand.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

Strategy Games are retardo brainded bad on the combat level.
They focus on Economy, Progression(Tech Tree) and Army movement which is the wrong things they should focus on.
They should focus on Supply and Resource Logistics and Fortifications, that is what a "Strategic" game is supposed to be, not that colonization cancer.
The problem is the only Strategy games that are "proper" are Wargames and they are damn slow to play and limited in terms of scenarios and flexibility.

Tactics Games is the only combat the dumb developers can understand.

yes grand strategy games are not great, there should be more operational level games, like there are in board wargames.

For me the operational level is the most interesting, meaning turns from a few turns in a day to moving once every 3-4 days w/ heavy emphasis on supply, and maybe even broken up into attack and defense supply or maybe supply and then artillery supply, and if you were able to hoard enough or push enough supply forward using HQ' units etc, you could gain advantage in attacks-- but you should only be able to attack where you have enough built up supply, not everywhere all over the map, making attacking more deliberate and planned out. Defense is always allowed, and using much less supply, if you can't get supply to a unit for defense then they defend at much decreased effectiveness which only grows worse the longer they remain unsupplied,..anyway..these are board game mechanics largely, but have seen some computer games use them, but would like to see more modern versions of this...

 

[KainenMorden]

What computer wargames come closest to this ideal?

 

[CandianMuse]

Do you think field of glory ii is one of the most complex tactics games around?

No one thinks that. Why would they? Moving squares on a square board is not really complex...

 

[KainenMorden]

Oh ok, what do you think is a complex game?

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

What computer wargames come closest to this ideal?

Some older Game by Scwerpunkt Games called 'The Anglo German War' Had some mechanics that worked like that, but only that game of his really, in the other games he made he changed how supply worked. I think some people could not grasp it and maybe complained, or perhaps it was too hard to program the AI and as he got older he got tired of doing it, he was a single person making the games. The games might be pretty painful to play now being used to modern UI etc,,



http://schwerpunkt.games/misc/games/anglo-german-war-1939-1945/

The Matrix Games recreation the enormous and complex board game 'A World In flames' has some similar mechanics, but they never could get the AI working, supposedly the programmer is still trying to program an AI for the game.

https://www.matrixgames.com/game/world-in-flames

A more modern and actually working game with sort of similar ideas(although not exactly), but with modern UI and that is playable might be Unity of Command II, but only the 2nd game, not the 1st. The 1st is a bit different.

 

[Malakal]

I prefer to focus on bigger scale of things, can't really get into fates of individual soldiers/units. Mostly that.

Also l enjoy economics, politics and such grander scale things in my games.

 

[KainenMorden]

I prefer to focus on bigger scale of things, can't really get into fates of individual soldiers/units. Mostly that.

Also l enjoy economics, politics and such grander scale things in my games.

Just curious what games do you think do economics and politics well?

 

[Malakal]

I prefer to focus on bigger scale of things, can't really get into fates of individual soldiers/units. Mostly that.

Also l enjoy economics, politics and such grander scale things in my games.

Just curious what games do you think do economics and politics well?

Basically no game does it all perfectly or even very well.

The dedicated grand strategy series like Victoria, Superpower or Supreme Ruler and such have braindead AI that can't use their systems and also extremely favor centrally planned economies (ran by the player of course). They have a system that doesn't rly work but it is there.

The dedicated political games like Democracy and the US Elections series usually just work based off some coded rules that are quite far from real life and apply to the game scenario.

Ironically Paradox titles like CK and Rome have great potential for politics, as it shows how random human relations can be and how little is needed for a civil war to happen. Those are simplistic though.

Shadow Empire does a great job or representing a somewhat complicated logistics/production system for a post apoc nation on a alien world. Especially logistics are top tier there.

Can't really say anything convinced me in the political/economic game section. No title stands out a lot.

 

[Axioms]

I would say I prefer a superset of strategy. I want my strategy, and tactics, to have a socio-economic and political context.

No game really does any of this well. Everything is basically just a wargame still. Someday maybe, we'll have glorious Byzantium/HRE simulator. But not today.

 

[Serus]

Because what Malakal said is sadly true i tend towards tactics these days, at least there are some tactical games where the AI is not (completely) braindead. I used to be less critical towards grand strategies.
However I'd love some GOOD historical, pre-modern times, grand strategies. Not Paradox ones, although they do a few things very well and can be enjoyable for a time. No such luck so it's tactics for me.
Overall i like both.

 

[Axioms]

Because what Malakal said is sadly true i tend towards tactics these days, at least there are some tactical games where the AI is not (completely) braindead. I used to be less critical towards grand strategies.
However I'd love some GOOD historical, pre-modern times, grand strategies. Not Paradox ones, although they do a few things very well and can be enjoyable for a time. No such luck so it's tactics for me.
Overall i like both.

Thoughts on FOG:E?

 

[KainenMorden]

Yes these are common complaints from fans of the genre for many years. I too would love an Eastern Roman Empire simulator, especially if the good guys could win and stop the ottomans for good just how they stopped the Ummayads.

Another random question, what tactics games have you guys enjoyed recently/what tactics games have decent AI?