RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


max_h -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/9/2005 11:11:41 AM)

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]



[:D]

estimated playing time: 10 years! [8D]




Reiryc -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/9/2005 8:28:41 PM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 3:10:32 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 3:32:15 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 3:35:56 AM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 3:40:30 AM)

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 3:49:55 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: Operational vs Strategic vs Tactical (1/10/2005 1:50:20 PM)

quote:

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.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375