Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Veldor -> Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 6:18:10 AM)

Sorry guys. Just had to do this. Hope it stays constructive and civil...

Which is better? Why do you prefer one over the other?

This question has plagued me since childhood (honestly!). I never cared much for operational games(naval/air excluded). Then or now. And though I'm usually pretty good (I'd like to think) at articulating my reasons and/or opinions, in this case I'm not so sure I'm able to.

It seems these days that a greater number of wargames are of an operational nature than not. Lets say 40% at least (vs 30% each for the other two) if not more. When I say i dont like operational wargames I really mean the more predominately land-based varieties and not games such as Uncommon Valor (which I tend to actually love)

If I had to try to argue why I like Tactical or Strategic Games better, in a very simple way, it would be something like:

1. Strategic Games offer a larger scope. Your decisions have greater impact and political, economic and other elements can also often be included.
2. Tactical Games offer more personalized control and a level of tactics that results in larger degrees of movement and alteration of forces or perhaps more simply put, more action and more realism.

In a way, I guess I could say, most operational games are more "boring" too me. And also lack the same level of "strategy and tactics" that the other 2 levels provide for better, if only slightly.

But to play the other side. I think a greater number of wargamers are probably "military history buffs" which means something like replaying the whole invasion of normandy is of high interest to see how you would or wouldn't do things differently. etc. etc. Harder to "model" with tactical or strategic level games if not altogether impossible.

So I get it to an extent, if that reasoning is correct.

Please note I'm not trying to knock anyone for liking Operational Wargames. I'm clearly in the minority.

I also like Fantasy and Sci-Fi Wargames (Which oddly always seem to be at either the tactical or strategic level and never operational). I suppose that could be another reason why. Also sort of proves my point about my belief Operational Games are geared more towards recreating a moment in history above and beyond all other objectives whereas the other two levels stress more of a Strategy & Tactics sort of approach first (hence more applicable to the "made up" worlds of Sci-Fi and Fantasy). Maybe someone else can explain it much better..

Anyway was more-so curious what others thought than to throw out my own opinions.

There are operational games that I have liked and one day I'd love to make one(meaning land-based) if only because, if I could make one I'd like, it would probably have to be a damn fine operational game. :)

Don't know.

So Tactical - Operational - Strategic , Historical - Fantasy - Science Fiction ?

How do you like your slice of wargame pie?



Sarge -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 7:58:40 AM)

Tactical

Like to get down in the mud with the grunts.



bostonrpgmania -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 8:15:50 AM)

Operational.
I prefer logistics, big picture things.
Dealing with several fronts within the grand strategic plan is very intriguing.
BTW, For tactical warfare, I found combat mission to be very intriguing followed by campaign series of talon soft which I recently bought. I love them.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 11:22:28 AM)

I don't have any particular preferences. Current gaming faves are 'Combat Mission' (tactical), 'Combat Command 2: Danger Forward Gold' (Grand Tactical), 'Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich' (Operational), and the perrenial Civilisation series. As long as the game is done well it's worth playing.



Koper -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 12:59:47 PM)

As active HoI proponent, I should have say "Strategic" (or, according to some - RTS [;)]), but I actually prefer tactical simulations.

Aspects like morale, personal traits, abilities and so on can't be simulated in operational (let alone strategic) simulations properly and are usually replaced by iron faith in "equipment" (long list of tanks, planes and ships) and experience (which often serves one goal only - achieving game balance).



Hertston -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 2:56:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge
Tactical
Like to get down in the mud with the grunts.



Likewise, although the nature of the game itself (UI, complexity, AI, MP facilities etc) is a more important factor than scale in whether I'll enjoy a game or not.



AnimalAl -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 7:24:54 PM)

I guess I have to say 60 percent tactical and 40 percent operational. I don't see that many strategic games that are both fun and realistic while being accessible to a wide audience. Never got into Third Reich as much as Risk. [;)]

I loved the Atomic Games and TalonSoft operational games, both Civil War and World War II. Didn't need the high-level logistics input, but they were great games that had a large span of units and options. But as others have noted, the tactical games are always pleasing to get down into the dirt and fight the battle of yards instead of miles.



mbatch729 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 8:56:26 PM)

Strategic - Which is why I'm really looking forward to GGWAW. But, all can be fun. Over the years I've enjoyed all levels. If the game is good, I'll play it no matter what the level.



a19999577 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 9:19:05 PM)

I like Operational and Strategic better. It seems a bit more 'real' inasmuch you make your decisions sitting down and looking at maps, often with a lot of time to spare. Even taking an entire hour or more to decide whether to invade the USSR or not is a fast decision there.

Tactical gameplay, however seems a bit too 'tidy' for me. As a commander at that level, decisions sometimes must be made on the spot, in a noisy and confusing [and cold, or hot or humid] battlefield, with bullets whizzing by all the time and taking cover. Looking at the situation on a computer or tabletop map, in a 'safe' environment just does not seem that involving to me.



KG Erwin -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/30/2004 11:11:50 PM)

As with most gamers, the level of the "God's Eye" view doesn't matter--it depends on the quality of the game itself. I can go from "right there" (SHII) to battalion commander (SPWaW) to regimental-level counters (TAO) to divisional (RGW) and on up the chain of command.

Right now, I'm playing SPWaW and MTW. MTW gives you both strategic and tactical command, but I let the PC automatically resolve the battles. With SPWaW, you don't necessarily have a gazillion units to keep track of (there's about 150 in my core force), and it's still one of my all-time favorites.



wodin -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/31/2004 1:44:47 AM)

Tactical is really my bag. Squad Battles does it for me. Close Combat aswell.

I enjoy what could be called operational/tactical games.

Last is grand strategy.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/31/2004 8:00:07 AM)

Strategic and Operational are my areas. I've never been much for man vs man and tank vs tank tactical slugfests.

I loved the old Talonsoft Battleground series (all of them) and Operational Art of War (Century of Warfare) is a favorite for modern battles. I'm just getting into Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy, but both are in my favorite scale.



KG Erwin -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/31/2004 10:07:28 AM)

rhondabrwn, you mentioned Battleground--I have the set with Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run and Shiloh. These are all great games, with many mods available. Are you aware of these mods? They are archived in bundles here: http://www.hist-sdc.com/onlinearch.html



riverbravo -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/31/2004 6:46:59 PM)

Tactical.



rhondabrwn -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (12/31/2004 7:32:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

rhondabrwn, you mentioned Battleground--I have the set with Gettysburg, Antietam, Bull Run and Shiloh. These are all great games, with many mods available. Are you aware of these mods? They are archived in bundles here: http://www.hist-sdc.com/onlinearch.html


No, I was unaware that this existed! Thanks! [&o][&o][&o]



WiTP_Dude -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 3:20:50 AM)

I have also played those old Talonsoft games. Though I only got around to buying the Antietam set I would have liked to try the others. Anyway it was always a challenge giving the computer complete control of the entire Union Army vs. your human controlled little Confederate Army at Sharpsburg. [:D]



riverbravo -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 6:30:50 PM)

I wish they made a game that would do it all.

When I play a operational game I feel I lose control of small details of the actual battle.While the operation loads you with stats and all the other things it stil seems their is a lack of control.

Take CM for example,great game but whats the point? I still like to play all the versions of CM and was playing CMBO just yesterday.BUT, without the strat layer or lack of campaign whats the point? Ok, you just won/lost a battle, what next? Well, lets just pretend this happened [8|].

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?

CC,CM or a proper SA style would work perfectly for the tactical level and a HTTR style would work perfectly for the OP/Strat level of the game.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 8:07:15 PM)

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.[:)]



Huskalator -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 9:12:18 PM)

Strategic is teh best!

There is nothing like making a grand strategy with respect to complex factors and seeing that strategy lift your empire to greatness or total failure. Millions of lives are in the balance! Strategic games often have some sort of industrial, resource management, and political aspect to them which I believe enhances the wargaming part immensely. Its much better to fight over vital resources needed for production of the new super-tank than to fight over 15 victory points.

My love for strategic does not diminish my enjoyment for tactical though. I love organizing flanking maneuvers or ruses to draw an opponent into a well orchestrated trap. Plus, tactical games feature the David and Goliath story of the 20th century: a single man with a bazooka taking down a tank, king of the battlefield. I also like the personal aspect of tactical games. Certain units that perform well time after time become like pets. I protect them and absolutely love seeing them cut down entire platoons.

Operational I don't enjoy quite as much. It loses the sense of grand scale and meaning that strategic has while losing the personal feeling of the tactical. The only redeeming feature of operational for me is that it is the best for MP.



Hertston -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 9:44:23 PM)

quote:

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. [:(]



Sarge -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 10:30:49 PM)

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

[image]local://upfiles/8678/Ig120700055.jpg[/image]



wodin -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 10:47:01 PM)

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



wodin -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 10:50:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

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

[image]local://upfiles/8678/Ig120700055.jpg[/image]


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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/1/2005 11:29:51 PM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 2:32:58 AM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 2:33:25 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 2:53:13 AM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 3:27:45 AM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 12:32:34 PM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/2/2005 4:14:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

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.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.810547