-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
I only played Advance War 2 and it reminds me of Daisenryaku which I consider a strategy game. But Advance War 2 plays more like a puzzle game in the campaign mode. The "skirmish" maps tend to be more open to variation in tactics(or strategy ha!).
Or we can just call it a turn-based tactical strategy game.
Or we can just call it a turn-based tactical strategy game.
Section8
Cipher
Go ask that guy over there. To him it is SERIOUS BUSINESS.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Before you burst into laughter, we had some guy here too who was always talking about seperating games into "realtime strategy", "realtime tactics", "turnbased strategy" and "turnbased tactics". He had a real boner for tactics, actually, and wanted to purge, purge I say, the word strategy from games like X-Com or Silent Storm or Dark Omen.
Myself? It's strategy. It always has been listed under this monicker. Dividing this genre further is silly.
Myself? It's strategy. It always has been listed under this monicker. Dividing this genre further is silly.
obediah
Erudite
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 5,051
Just because the distinction between tactics and strategy can be hard doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The combat in ToEE is tactical.
The combat in HoI2 is strategic.
X-Com has both a tactical and strategic layer.
JA2 has both a tactical and strategic layer.
I have no fucking clue where to draw the line though.
I think Advance Wars intentionally blends the two (similar to how many RTS abominations do). The "strategic layer" is a narrative which suggests the game is about tactics. But there are light elements of unit production, supply, economics, and other strategic elements. But ultimately, the levels are too short, your freedom too constrained, and too few variables to manage for it to be called a strategy game.
The combat in ToEE is tactical.
The combat in HoI2 is strategic.
X-Com has both a tactical and strategic layer.
JA2 has both a tactical and strategic layer.
I have no fucking clue where to draw the line though.
I think Advance Wars intentionally blends the two (similar to how many RTS abominations do). The "strategic layer" is a narrative which suggests the game is about tactics. But there are light elements of unit production, supply, economics, and other strategic elements. But ultimately, the levels are too short, your freedom too constrained, and too few variables to manage for it to be called a strategy game.
Gnidrologist
CONDUCTOR
Global far sighted macro management = strategy.
Local mircro management dealing with the situation at hand = tactics.
Is it really that complicated?
Local mircro management dealing with the situation at hand = tactics.
Is it really that complicated?
obediah
Erudite
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 5,051
Jasede said:
Quite being retarded. The difference between tactics and strategy is not semantics.
Just because gamespot morons bin everything that doesn't use wasd controls into the strategy genre doesn't mean all those games are the same. Starcraft, combat mission, moo2, and War In The Pacific all target very different markets. Asking whether a strategy game is tactical or strategic is as valid as asking whether an RPG is a C&C rpg vs jrpg, or tb vs rt.
Gnidrologist said:
Have you played the game? Or an rts? The abstractions they use take from both strategy and tactics. Mining gold has no place in a tactics game, just like telling your archers to get in the tower for defense has no place in a strategy game.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
Good friend, please, you need not call me retarded for merely following the -normal convention- of calling everything tactical a part of the "Strategy" genre when it comes to games.
I do not see why you fail to understand that or why you take offense to this common convention that has been in use since the beginning of time, but if you insist on using foul language then please, go ahead. I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Well, I am a reasonable person and if it does indeed, please, continue. I only wish for you to be happy.
In fact, since I clearly stated I was talking about games and their genre-naming convention, and not about the difference between tactics and strategy would, to a keen observer prove, that it is you, good fellow, who is, as you put it so roughly, mentally disabled. But I am well above calling you such a name for I know that you merely made a mistake in the heat of debate.
Still, try to improve and work on yourself, gentleman.
Addendum:
Since this perturbs me highly I will see if it is not I who is in the wrong. Let me, good Sir, check my post:
I seem to be speaking about the -genre- "strategy game". Note this! The genre! Not the -word-! The genre! The genre games like these are handled under in gaming magazines. I say further, note this, that this, and I mark it for you so as to not make your mistake again, this _genre_ is said to also include all tactical games since the dawn of time. Take any gaming magazine, most websites: you will find tactical games handled under "Strategy". This is because "Strategy" as a genre is commonly meant to contain tactical games too, which is the reason why it is entirely correct to call a tactical game by its gerne: a strategy game. Now, if you do so insist, you may certainly invent a sub-genre called tactics, but, good friend, you will not succeed in breaking this age-old convention.
After analyzing my old post I can find no mistake. So I must conclude that yes, indeed, Sir, the error is on your side. I hope you can improve and I wish you the best of luck.
Sincerely,
Your Jasede, 3. February 2008
I do not see why you fail to understand that or why you take offense to this common convention that has been in use since the beginning of time, but if you insist on using foul language then please, go ahead. I suppose it makes you feel better about yourself. Well, I am a reasonable person and if it does indeed, please, continue. I only wish for you to be happy.
In fact, since I clearly stated I was talking about games and their genre-naming convention, and not about the difference between tactics and strategy would, to a keen observer prove, that it is you, good fellow, who is, as you put it so roughly, mentally disabled. But I am well above calling you such a name for I know that you merely made a mistake in the heat of debate.
Still, try to improve and work on yourself, gentleman.
Addendum:
Since this perturbs me highly I will see if it is not I who is in the wrong. Let me, good Sir, check my post:
Yours Truly said:
I seem to be speaking about the -genre- "strategy game". Note this! The genre! Not the -word-! The genre! The genre games like these are handled under in gaming magazines. I say further, note this, that this, and I mark it for you so as to not make your mistake again, this _genre_ is said to also include all tactical games since the dawn of time. Take any gaming magazine, most websites: you will find tactical games handled under "Strategy". This is because "Strategy" as a genre is commonly meant to contain tactical games too, which is the reason why it is entirely correct to call a tactical game by its gerne: a strategy game. Now, if you do so insist, you may certainly invent a sub-genre called tactics, but, good friend, you will not succeed in breaking this age-old convention.
After analyzing my old post I can find no mistake. So I must conclude that yes, indeed, Sir, the error is on your side. I hope you can improve and I wish you the best of luck.
Sincerely,
Your Jasede, 3. February 2008
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2005
- Messages
- 24,793
obediah said:
Ah, but is not the one who hurls insults the one who is retarded? I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you, good Sir!
Truly, you need to find better coping mechanisms for your troubles than to call others retarded. After all, by doing that, you open yourself for assault. Remember Kant's golden rules!
I am merely trying to improve you, my friend, as a person, so we can live together in harmony.
Sincerely,
Your Jasede, 3.February 2008
Gnidrologist
CONDUCTOR
Never said that. I was just drawing a line between strategy and tactics. Civ series for example also have both in it. Most strategy games have in fact. Not all tactical ones do though.obediah said:
kingcomrade
Kingcomrade
The tactics vs strategy debate is always retarded, as most debates involving supposedly enlightened self righteous teens (or DarkSign) usually are.
The difference, as explained to a CQB trained Navy friend of mine (who was cooincidentally on the Cole when it got hit), is this : Sub Tactical is the details of what you do as a person. How you take cover, how broad of a target you present yourself, how much you can see, your ammo situation, etc.
Tactical is what you do that effects your squad, and what they do that effects you.
Strategic is when squads effect one another.
Advanced Wars, by its nature, is a strategic game.
Tactical is what you do that effects your squad, and what they do that effects you.
Strategic is when squads effect one another.
Advanced Wars, by its nature, is a strategic game.
Alex
Arcane
I think that a more precise, less overloaded vocabulary can often be a helpful thing. The simple action of separating a broad genre in smaller ones can lead to a better understanding of the included games's strengths and weakness. Of course it also allows better communication.
Jason
chasing a bee
There is a difference between tactics and strategy.
AW is a turn-based strategy game.
Case closed. No need to thank me.
AW is a turn-based strategy game.
Case closed. No need to thank me.
Sounds like Mikhail. Whatever happened to that guy? Who is watching out for Wikipedia in his stead? Who will start our Wiki-related threads?
Otingocni
Novice
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Messages
- 92
Ha! Wow, it is this sort of penny-ante bullshit which makes Wikipedia so funny/sad. All these little guys are so serious, and trying to out-due each other using Wikipedia rules. Editing back and forth, consensus, trying to dig up sources based on the blurb of some clueless marketing guy; its like children playing around the dirt.
Course, that is the grand thing about Wikipedia, rule-whoring to triumph your uninformed opinion over everyone elses uninformed opinion, or even the very occasional informed one.
Course, that is the grand thing about Wikipedia, rule-whoring to triumph your uninformed opinion over everyone elses uninformed opinion, or even the very occasional informed one.
Shagnak
Shagadelic
That be correct.
GhostFreak
Novice
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1
Wikipedia? The place full of biased articles and dumbass admins. Like that pissface Jeske. That guy dreams in being in a live version of Brokeback Mountain.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.