Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical

[Sarge]

Here is screen shot of the game that would wreck all of our social interaction[:'(]

[wodin]

I too liked CC2 and its semi strategic layer. I loved all the games in the series though.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Here is screen shot of the game that would wreck all of our social interaction[:'(]

Surely a game like that wouldnt work. The HTTR part would be useless as it would be decided by a tactical CM engine, so what would be the point of the HTTR bit?

It would work if you just watched the tactical side rather than had any input thus the fighting part of HTTR would be were battles are decided, yet you watched the outcome at a tactical level.

If you think about it I think you will see were Im coming from.

[EricGuitarJames]

Wodin, I see where you're coming from. Maybe HTTR is not quite the right scale, we'd need something at more battalion or even regimental level to make the concept work. But I like Sarge's basic premise and I particularly like the 'artwork'[:D]

[ravinhood]

Before games like Medieval Total War, Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, and Sid Meiers Gettysburg, I was a Civilization/Alpha Centauri nut. But, now I prefer "tactical" combat games, but, not a total "real time strategy" type game like Warcraft or Age of Whatever, never liked those, they aren't tactical, they are build as fast as you can and grunt rush to victory.

I prefer setup parameters to my tactical battles, like those in Combat Mission, where one can "buy" their units like CM, MTW, SP and (cough) RTW. (RTW isn't bad if you just play the custom battles and put 6 armies out there to fight for king of the hill.)

So, I'd like to see more "tactical" type battle games. I'd like to see a "Civil War" game where I can "buy" my units instead of them pre-designed like in Sid Meiers Gettysburg, though the "random" unit creation feature of it still makes it playable and fun.

And of course I'm still waiting for that grand operational/tactical "Civil War" game. Simular to the Total War series, but, a lot better campaign game (more historical and realistic with supply and logistics and all that stuff) and then a tactical battle of "my" choosing or the AI's choosing instead of just premade same ole same ole Gettysburg, Antietam, Shilo, blah blah blah, I want to write my own Civil War history. I would also settle for a hex based game of this type, doesn't have to have the minatures, they would just add color to the game, but, anyway this game can be made would be fine by me.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: wodin


Surely a game like that wouldnt work. The HTTR part would be useless as it would be decided by a tactical CM engine, so what would be the point of the HTTR bit?

It would work if you just watched the tactical side rather than had any input thus the fighting part of HTTR would be were battles are decided, yet you watched the outcome at a tactical level.

If you think about it I think you will see were Im coming from.

It was a joke [8|]

[Fred98]

In spite of the joke, I have had a dream for years.

In playing a operational game such as BIN ot TAOW or Avalon Hill's - Crusader/Stalingrad/America Invades. In each hex there is a battle and the outcome is based on a whole series of variables.

Imagine instead, you are transported to a game of Close Combat to play out the result at a tactical level, then transported back to the operational level.

In paractical terms, it would take waaaay tooooo long just to to play the campaign. Has anybody completed a PBEM game of the WITP campaign scenario?

[wodin]

Hmm...The Idea is great. I too would like to see a game like that. Just pointing out that HTTR isnt the right game to use for the Idea you have. Maybe PZC or BiN.

[Pippin]

Before games like Medieval Total War, Combat Mission, Steel Panthers, and Sid Meiers Gettysburg, I was a Civilization/Alpha Centauri nut. But, now I prefer "tactical" combat games, but, not a total "real time strategy" type game like Warcraft or Age of Whatever, never liked those, they aren't tactical, they are build as fast as you can and grunt rush to victory.

I prefer setup parameters to my tactical battles, like those in Combat Mission, where one can "buy" their units like CM, MTW, SP and (cough) RTW. (RTW isn't bad if you just play the custom battles and put 6 armies out there to fight for king of the hill.)

So, I'd like to see more "tactical" type battle games. I'd like to see a "Civil War" game where I can "buy" my units instead of them pre-designed like in Sid Meiers Gettysburg, though the "random" unit creation feature of it still makes it playable and fun.

Oh man, recently I made the mistake of playing Civ III again. I actually am quite comfortable beating it on one level down from deity. Will I ever beat it on deity? Someday, if all the planets align right, I guess.

As for Civil War games, you may want to try out Civil War General. You have the option to upgrade guns & cannons, as well as capture supply, etc. Actually I dont play any other civil war games as they just dont seem to compare.

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

CC5 almost had it right.With more attention paid to the strat layer it would have been really good.

Why not a game that lets players do both? Is it not possible?

I thought CC2 got it just right... it's still easily my favourite in the series for that reason. Unfortunately, the same system just wouldn't have worked with CC3, and while it would have been fine with CC4 they didn't bother. [:(]

Yea, CC2's market garden was well done.

I would think that Market Garden would be one of the easier to do.With the bridges and the single road bit.

[max_h]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Here is screen shot of the game that would wreck all of our social interaction[:'(]

[:D]

estimated playing time: 10 years! [8D]

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

It would be great RB. We discussed adding a campaign 'feature' to the next of the AA series but we ran into a couple of problems. Firstly, the sheer computing power required to run a campaign in 'real-time' is absolutely enormous! Secondly, although you can have a series of 'linked' battles as a way of getting around this, it makes it very linear and, imho, very unrealistic in the context of WW2. I know for others this is less of a problem.

I agree with what you say about CM, nowadays I only play online where the interaction with a good opponent is almost as much fun as the gameplay itself.[:)]

Just have a mission tree branch. It's still a bit linear, but the idea is that depending on how you did in the current battle, it determines which battle you go to next. Sort of like how cc1 did it.

[hank]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

In spite of the joke, I have had a dream for years.

In playing a operational game such as BIN ot TAOW or Avalon Hill's - Crusader/Stalingrad/America Invades. In each hex there is a battle and the outcome is based on a whole series of variables.

Imagine instead, you are transported to a game of Close Combat to play out the result at a tactical level, then transported back to the operational level.

In paractical terms, it would take waaaay tooooo long just to to play the campaign. Has anybody completed a PBEM game of the WITP campaign scenario?

I guess I would answer that question originally posted like this:

I play PzCampaigns, both modern battles (Fulda Gap) and WWII (Smolensk). I also play Battles in Normandy. How would you describe these two games?

I think BiN would be Operational/Strategic and PzC would be grand tactical ... IMHO. Is that the way you see it?

But, the reason I included Joe's comment is because that's my dream too. I would like to play a BiN type of game to make my decisions and commands; then hit a button to zoom into a view like you get with Rome Total War to watch the battle unfold. That would be awesome. ... and have the control to rotate, zoom, pan like in the old game, Ground Control, to see what's happening. I don't really want to be forced to command every battalion or company; I would rather the AI do the detailed work ... sort of how Highway to the Reich is ... which I also play.

For me that would be the ultimate war game.

hank

[bostonrpgmania]

ORIGINAL: hank



But, the reason I included Joe's comment is because that's my dream too. I would like to play a BiN type of game to make my decisions and commands; then hit a button to zoom into a view like you get with Rome Total War to watch the battle unfold. That would be awesome. ... and have the control to rotate, zoom, pan like in the old game, Ground Control, to see what's happening. I don't really want to be forced to command every battalion or company; I would rather the AI do the detailed work ... sort of how Highway to the Reich is ... which I also play.

For me that would be the ultimate war game.

hank

Absolutely agreed

[Veldor]

I've always felt you should be able to control meals in WiTP. Reward the best pilots with fancy feasts and extra shore leave. A little female companionship.

I'd also like to see the effect a machine gun jam might have had in that grand strategic game.

Isn't there a point where too much detail just ruins the game? I think too many wargames have already exceeded that threshold. If it ultimately cannot have an effect on the outcome of the game or the decisions made or strategies chosen/planned then why include it at all?

A combined Tactical/Operational/Strategic game would be just that for sure. A lot of pointless extra detail and complexity for no real benefit. Any perceived additional realism would be just that, a total illusion.

And likely far too many other elements, A.I. for one, would suffer enormously in such a game model.

It would be.. utterly unplayable.

[KG Erwin]

Now, if one were to combine an operational -level game such as Korsun Pocket or TAO with tactical combat like CM or SPWaW, then this is closer to doable. The individual combats could be scaled-down proportionately to the forces involved in the tactical combat, a variation on the Rome/Medieval Total War system. In other words, a Panzer Regiment would be only a platoon for tactical resolution. It would still be abstract, but possible.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Now, if one were to combine an operational -level game such as Korsun Pocket or TAO with tactical combat like CM or SPWaW, then this is closer to doable. The individual combats could be scaled-down proportionately to the forces involved in the tactical combat, a variation on the Rome/Medieval Total War system. In other words, a Panzer Regiment would be only a platoon for tactical resolution. It would still be abstract, but possible.

Yeah but because of the abstraction you still wouldn't really be adding any realism. Just a different mechanic for combat resolution. In many cases it would probably unbalance the game entirely. Basically think quickly of the Axis & Allies RTS or even the old Archon, if your good enough at the lowest level of play, you can totally suck at the strategic portion, because you'll still win the tactical battles.

This doesn't mean games like this can't work. Just in my opinion you have to be careful that your not creating more of a "gimic" than anything else.

[Pippin]

Basically think quickly of the Axis & Allies RTS

YUK! That A&A rts is not A&A by any means. I am not sure what they were thinking when someone came up with that title/idea.