Tactics vs Strategy
- Thread starter syndicated44
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yeah i tend to love games like civ. IV and empire earth, idk what it is but i just love that extra part about building/management outside of just war.
Nah, consoles would be better suited to mass armies, attack.
Macro management. Micro management has no place on those clunky controllers.
I really like RTS games as well.
Favourite of course being Starcraft, and from playing the beta, Starcraft 2 could surpass it.
Starcraft/2 is a really Micro intensive game.
Then you have another game I enjoy playing a bit: Supreme Commander, which is almost entirely macro-management.
Both are fun.
I've played halo wars, I disliked it.
I've played LOTR BFME II on Xbox, I really liked it.
Macro management. Micro management has no place on those clunky controllers.
I really like RTS games as well.
Favourite of course being Starcraft, and from playing the beta, Starcraft 2 could surpass it.
Starcraft/2 is a really Micro intensive game.
Then you have another game I enjoy playing a bit: Supreme Commander, which is almost entirely macro-management.
Both are fun.
I've played halo wars, I disliked it.
I've played LOTR BFME II on Xbox, I really liked it.
Agreed on Homeworld. Part of what made it so compelling was that you never quite knew what you'd need for the next encounter. Everything that you built in one level carried over to the next, so early fleet development could impact later missions, like strategically salvaging and re-commissioning the right vehicles to bolster your fleet. Been so long since I played it, but that was the sense I remember getting from it.
I think the smaller-scale battles and micromanagement provide more concentrated doses of thrills. Each game is shorter and more intense, like a quick hit of strategy and neck-and-neck battles, compared to a longer drag of resource management and infrastructure-building (did I just make a drug metaphor?). I think that appeals more on the e-sports side of things and leaves players with more powerful individual experiences, even if it's not ultimately as fulfilling for certain players.
I think the smaller-scale battles and micromanagement provide more concentrated doses of thrills. Each game is shorter and more intense, like a quick hit of strategy and neck-and-neck battles, compared to a longer drag of resource management and infrastructure-building (did I just make a drug metaphor?). I think that appeals more on the e-sports side of things and leaves players with more powerful individual experiences, even if it's not ultimately as fulfilling for certain players.
I miss the old-school RTS model of:
Build up base ---> Harvest resource X ---> Research technology to beef up units ---> Crank out army of doom soldiers and tanks ---> Crush enemy.
I have been playing RTS games since Dune II (anyone remember that little gem?), and I think the genre as a whole took a nose-dive with the latest C&C game.
C&C4 is a heap of shit!!! What the hell did they think they were doing?! Why would anyone remove tiberium harvesting from a C&C game?!?!!!?!?!!!?!?11!?!!1 Not to mention the fact that the gameplay is bland, boring, lacking any real single player content, and consists of a small game built around a giant DRM system.
I take solace in Supreme Commander 2. While I have no desire to own it since it seems to have been dumbed down a bit, I am at least happy to see it keep the traditional model that made Total Annhilation and Supreme Commander/Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance so great.
Build up base ---> Harvest resource X ---> Research technology to beef up units ---> Crank out army of doom soldiers and tanks ---> Crush enemy.
I have been playing RTS games since Dune II (anyone remember that little gem?), and I think the genre as a whole took a nose-dive with the latest C&C game.
C&C4 is a heap of shit!!! What the hell did they think they were doing?! Why would anyone remove tiberium harvesting from a C&C game?!?!!!?!?!!!?!?11!?!!1 Not to mention the fact that the gameplay is bland, boring, lacking any real single player content, and consists of a small game built around a giant DRM system.
I take solace in Supreme Commander 2. While I have no desire to own it since it seems to have been dumbed down a bit, I am at least happy to see it keep the traditional model that made Total Annhilation and Supreme Commander/Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance so great.
Tactics and strategy refer to entirely different concepts really. It's a matter of scope and scale is all. Tactics are used to win battles - maneuvering particular units about in an attempt to gain advantage on the field. Strategy is used to win wars - determining the general course for much larger units (armies) and so forth.
The Total War series attempts to use both tiers during the single player game. Entire armies are maneuvered, targets are prioritized and supply lines are established. Choosing to defend a particular bridge crossing in Medieval 2 is a strategic one as it forces any attempt to cross in a timely fashion to be contested by your own army(ies). The actual conduct of the battle - determining what your trebuchet's are doing, maneuvering pikemen to hold the chokepoint at the bridge and so forth are tactical decisions.
Generally put, a well executed strategy is one that allows for the best possible advantage once battle is joined. A well executed tactic is one that helps set the condition for victory on the field.
Very generally, RTS games revolve around tactics rather than strategy. If one were to seperate the two components in your average game (Say, starcraft) they'd find that the tactical component is target selection and micromanagement of your units (maneuver doesn't confer a specific advantage in most cases - you're either in your optimal range or you aren't), and the strategic element revolves around base building, resource collection and the general stance you choose to take at a given moment (defensive, aggressive, etc). While not strictly correct, this separation is conveninent enough for most uses.
In general, I prefer games that place most of the emphasis on the tactical element while minimizing the strategic element. If I play dawn of War II as the space marines for example, my strategic choice early in the game is one of emphasizing early gains (three scout squads versus a marine squad), emphasizing a defensive posture (a tactical squad allowing for more rapid resource gains especially in the form of power) or a mix (a tactical squad and a scout squad). This allows more of my time to be spent managing the crisis of the moment rather than dividing my attention.
The Total War series attempts to use both tiers during the single player game. Entire armies are maneuvered, targets are prioritized and supply lines are established. Choosing to defend a particular bridge crossing in Medieval 2 is a strategic one as it forces any attempt to cross in a timely fashion to be contested by your own army(ies). The actual conduct of the battle - determining what your trebuchet's are doing, maneuvering pikemen to hold the chokepoint at the bridge and so forth are tactical decisions.
Generally put, a well executed strategy is one that allows for the best possible advantage once battle is joined. A well executed tactic is one that helps set the condition for victory on the field.
Very generally, RTS games revolve around tactics rather than strategy. If one were to seperate the two components in your average game (Say, starcraft) they'd find that the tactical component is target selection and micromanagement of your units (maneuver doesn't confer a specific advantage in most cases - you're either in your optimal range or you aren't), and the strategic element revolves around base building, resource collection and the general stance you choose to take at a given moment (defensive, aggressive, etc). While not strictly correct, this separation is conveninent enough for most uses.
In general, I prefer games that place most of the emphasis on the tactical element while minimizing the strategic element. If I play dawn of War II as the space marines for example, my strategic choice early in the game is one of emphasizing early gains (three scout squads versus a marine squad), emphasizing a defensive posture (a tactical squad allowing for more rapid resource gains especially in the form of power) or a mix (a tactical squad and a scout squad). This allows more of my time to be spent managing the crisis of the moment rather than dividing my attention.
To this day I will always prefer that long drawn out fight. I dont know why but its just so much more emotional to watch that base you carefully put together get steamrolled while you have absolutely no control over it. Its just desperation as you try your best to cut your losses and run and its always a coin toss whether you get away or not or for that matter be able to hold off that huge force while you rebuild.rsvp42 said:
Homeworld's skirmish was amazing. There were so many approaches you could take. Kamikaze some resource collectors into that battlecruiser breathing down your neck to soften it up then send some bombers at it eventually finishing it off with a few ion frigates. If it did blow up your Mothership there was always that possibility of having that beautiful carrier hidden away in some nebula happily mining away building up a fleet to attack the enemy while it was distracted.
It truly was a grand mesh of tactical fleet warfare and grand strategy. You could have games of cat and mouse through hyperspace which boiled down to a test of resourcing capabilities. Plus those damn salvage corvettes could steal half your fleet and then use it against you.
The story as you said was brilliant that you kept what ships you had previous plus all of the resources you had (damn them for having me sit there and resource everything). It was constant preporation, on top of that it was important to keep a wide variety of ships to attack any situation. Plus the story in Homeworld one was brutally hard. I will never ever forget that normally cool and calm fleet command worriedly saying "we're being overwhelemed". The story was just amazing and it was something that sent chills down your spine. There are very few games, movies, books or anything that has stuck with me like the story in Homeworld.
HW: Cataclysm and HW 2 were very good in there own right and those deserve their own little praise and disdain but no other game will ever be the original Homeworld.
Supcom 2 is a perfect example of an RTS that they did their absolute best to design for a console. I havnt played it on a console however I do play a round of it and FA at least once a day. The game however is just set up to be used for a console. It is actually rather well built that I wouldnt mind giving it a try on my 360 sometime just to see. Groups of units are automatically grouped together so everything you just built from a factory is put automatically into a group. The game is also a bit more CnC then I would prefer but then again thats not a bad thing. Its a more generic style RTS instead of a long drawn out 3 hour skirmish which I can respect. I dont know anyone other then myself that seriously enjoys a 3 hour war. They do however keep that core feeling of what made Supcom good (I never played Total Annihilation).tsb247 said:
I havnt played CnC 4 but that one was in my mind when I made this thread. Primarily because they also moved away from the base building model (from what I have heard) to go to the smaller squad based style tactical fighting. Which confuses the living hell out of me. Why would you change the formula on the game to send off Kane? Why not keep the formula and make a different game like Red Alert 4 and then try your experiment with that one? Or for that matter why didnt they run their experiment with Red Alert 3 and then have a better refined version of CnC 4? Its just a very dumb move on their part and it saddens me to see it end on such a bad note.
Frankly I've never been a huge fan of base building in RTS with few exceptions. In most rts building a base, building by building, is just an artificial means of limiting the speed by which you advance unit wise. There's very little real 'strategy' behind it beyond simply deciding which units you want to produce first and perhaps constructing a few of the proverbial 'towers' for defense should the enemy attack.
So in that respect I really do much prefer the take games such as Dawn of War 2 have on the genre. Completely eliminating that artificial barrier in favor of concentrating more heavily on unit positioning on the battlefield, using the environment, and good micromanagement. Without having to return to your base every few seconds the focus is completely centered on the battles and as a result are often much more visceral when you get multiple players in a skirmish trying to position themselves towards victory. This also allows for units to be more heavily specialized rather than generic counters towards another unit. No more Rock Paper Scissors when Paper can, when micromanaged properly, use a grenade to disable Scissors defenses and wield upgraded weapons which pierce its shiny metallic armor.
I love that, allows more diversity on the battlefield rather than simply trying to preemptively guess your opponents unit que and building up a force designed to counter it. Something you see quite a bit in Starcraft 2 with players trying to spy on each others bases constantly and guess the players next move. A fun sort of strategy itself, I'm not going to deny, but I simply prefer the more visceral sort of rts which takes guessing out of the equation and relies more heavily upon the skill of the player rather than their clicking speed and ability to memorize winning strategies.
Of course sometimes this all goes horribly wrong and you end up with games like the recent CnC 4, which I thought was horribly oversimplified and completely missed the point of the tactics over base-building approach. But that's a risk every game takes when it tries new things. Apparently Supcom 2 also did something similar, which is a shame since I thought they had a pretty unique winning formula with the first game I would have liked to see refined.
(An exception being games like Age of Empires 2, Supcom, or semi-sim games like Stronghold, where building up a proper base is eithermore important than controlling armies or a legitimate plan towards victory. I love those sorta games as well although I very rarely play them online.)
So in that respect I really do much prefer the take games such as Dawn of War 2 have on the genre. Completely eliminating that artificial barrier in favor of concentrating more heavily on unit positioning on the battlefield, using the environment, and good micromanagement. Without having to return to your base every few seconds the focus is completely centered on the battles and as a result are often much more visceral when you get multiple players in a skirmish trying to position themselves towards victory. This also allows for units to be more heavily specialized rather than generic counters towards another unit. No more Rock Paper Scissors when Paper can, when micromanaged properly, use a grenade to disable Scissors defenses and wield upgraded weapons which pierce its shiny metallic armor.
I love that, allows more diversity on the battlefield rather than simply trying to preemptively guess your opponents unit que and building up a force designed to counter it. Something you see quite a bit in Starcraft 2 with players trying to spy on each others bases constantly and guess the players next move. A fun sort of strategy itself, I'm not going to deny, but I simply prefer the more visceral sort of rts which takes guessing out of the equation and relies more heavily upon the skill of the player rather than their clicking speed and ability to memorize winning strategies.
Of course sometimes this all goes horribly wrong and you end up with games like the recent CnC 4, which I thought was horribly oversimplified and completely missed the point of the tactics over base-building approach. But that's a risk every game takes when it tries new things. Apparently Supcom 2 also did something similar, which is a shame since I thought they had a pretty unique winning formula with the first game I would have liked to see refined.
(An exception being games like Age of Empires 2, Supcom, or semi-sim games like Stronghold, where building up a proper base is eithermore important than controlling armies or a legitimate plan towards victory. I love those sorta games as well although I very rarely play them online.)
You aren't alone. I too love the long, drawn out, epic 5 hour long battles that can occur in a game such as Homeworld, or in my case, Rise of Legends.syndicated44 said:
But I agree completely when it comes to C&C4. They destroyed, or rather, ignored the formula that made the franchise so great, and instead of having Kane go out with a bang, he kinda faded out with a nausiating belch. EA really screwed up C&C with the latest game, and I'm not sure I can forgive them for that. I have been playing C&C since Tiberian Dawn, and I was hoping for a more traditional conclusion to the series.