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
|
|
|
|