TheGrayMouser
Posts: 296
Joined: 7/12/2009
Status: offline
|
Interesting to see how players view and or define operations vs tactical. I personally think it has much less to do with things like weapon ranges, scale etc but what you as the player DO and WHY you do them in the game. Do you do things that are tactical or do things deemed operational or even strategic? Since games are GAMES, very few seriously try to simulate YOU in realistic role as a major, a general, supremo commander, Kaiser or whatever.. ( FPS exempted perhaps) Thus most games are somewhat hy-breds.
Some examples: Steel Panthers 3 , Talonsofts/Matrix's East Front West Front etc game, are platoon scale ( ie you pick up and move platoon size units in game) Scale is 200 and 250 meters/hex, clearly range in hexes is a huge consideration for positioning your tanks, AT guns, missles whatever.. There is no fatigue management, units cannot be repaired or receive replacements, there is no change from day to nite and thus even the largest battles in the games are hour, or mult-hour affairs. Pretty darn tactical. It goes without saying SP 1 2 and the various offshoots from Matrix and Shrapnel, The Squad Battled Games from JT are of the same vein , pure tactical.
If you then consider the Napoleonic titles( and the Civil war ones too)from JTS/WDS your "pieces" are battalion, Squadron or battery size elements, which were the actual lowest maneuver units( in general) in those eras. 100 Yard hexes, ranges of weaponry matters, and facing relative to the enemy matters. ( flank attacks confer bonus in melee). Seems very tactical... but!:
Some of the maps are monstrous, and are played out over several days with nite turns where fatigue can be reduced or increased if one tries to maneuver at nite.. With Division and Corps size units in route of march columns miles away from where the battle POSSIBLY can be fought, players can decide what road networks to take and make decision that imho seem much more operational..Your shaping when where and how the battle develops.
Of course, you still have to DO this by moving many pieces one at a time, down to 50 man skirmishes screening the army... Not really what an operational commander ( ie Davout, Napoleon) would be doing.. So what is this, a tactical game or what? haha!
Now if you go up a level in size there are the Tiller Operational games for WW1 and WW2, 1 hour turns, 1 km hexes, small arms all have the same range( adjacent) the full battle in the titles can be like 400 turns, so over a week or more in time. Fatigue, replacements etc all come into play. Seems pretty operational BUT you are still moving basically tactical units around ( a lot of them) ! So it seems again, its a tactical game in what you do, but the size is so large it has the feel of operations without really having any mechanics for that.. BTY this is not a bad thing, the WW1 titles are pretty amazing!
I don't own these but I suspect that the Decisive Campaigns sold here by Vic likley have actual operational elements in what you do as a player, but I'm not sure.
One thing that not too many computer games do ( but a lot of board games did) is Grand Tactical. I don't own these either, but the Napoleonic games made by Paul Bruffel at HPS sims seem to fit this bill.
The players concern is over the battlefield area only( ie Austerlitz etc), the map has area movement ( so no mini maxing terrain, if you enter an area that is wooded you suffer the penalties for being in wooded , in say Steel panthers a heavily wooded map will have breaks in the trees, paths etc you can maneuver and fight in and thru if woods are no good for your tanks) Units are regiments ( which would be several actual tactical units of battalions or squadrons in each one) When you attack another area, you are not concerned about the most in game effectiveness of range or flanks for the small element in a stack, these are not your concerns in a grand tactical game, and the game doesn't include those elements anyhow.
Arguably the Panzer general games might be grand tactical but certainly also they have operational ( fuel, weather, cities and production centers) and even strategic concerns as well ( you control the means of producing your army tailored to what you like...choices in branching paths ie attempt Sealion OR Barbarossa in 1940). Not a fair comparison as im talking about a campaign of linking carryover battles here, where i was really talking about single scenarios in the other games, however the grand campaign always defined the PG games and I think it would be a mostly forgotten footnote if SSI only included single battles.
Without a doubt, the TOAW games, when they stick within the boundries of size scale time etc that Norm Koger recommended for best use, feel very operational but I suspect one can see the tactical in there too if you look hard enough.
Anyway I have procrastinated enough to avoid moving a lot of snow off my house, cheers!
< Message edited by TheGrayMouser -- 1/29/2022 5:55:18 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: new To the genre and looking for some war gaming ad... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread