11-05-2002 21:59									#1
	Strategic or Tactical Combat?? Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

'k...first of all, let me say that designing a game by committee is NOT something I am aiming to do. In the same breath, I also want to make sure the game we create here, is a game that'll make the largest number of people playing it really, really happy with the finished product.

To that end, polls on various ways of implementing features seem like a good way to get a feel for the desires of those who are following the project, and that's just exactly what this represents.

The question of whether or not there will be combat in the game is not up for debate...as a 4x style game, of course there will be. The real issue at hand is how will it be handled.

As such....a poll, to see where everyone's thinking is on it.

It is a given that there will be an "auto resolution" option underlying the choices here....That's not something I've ever personally made use of, but I guess some do, and it's not hard to build in.

So...vote, and comment accordingly, and I'll sit back and watch the results...and plot and scheme, and do other related stuffages....

-=Vel=-

	11-05-2002 22:19									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I can't vote as I do not understand the game well enough yet. But I am a wargamer at heart and my first inclination in design would be to lay the framework for combat first and make all other game concepts adhere to that model.

Combat is wonderful because it is conflict and conflict is what makes any story work. And games well done are nothing more than interactive stories IMHO.

There can and should be other forms of conflict in games of course, and you can always design a "sim in a sandbox game" where the conflict is only with oneself. But combat is pretty keen.

So I guess I would lean towards tactical resolution, at least in the multiplayer rendition.

	11-05-2002 22:21									#3
	Support Apolyton

You really should have played MOO2 MP with me before, Vel!

Tactical is where the fun really is, but it has to be really tuned and refined, so that in MP games it won't take longer than 3-5 minutes. And that is a really hard task to get!
Strategic is the obsolete Civ 1 style, IMO. But if you can't get a good tactical combat for MP then let's have a strategic combat rather than a painful tactical combat mode.

	11-05-2002 23:11									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I should know this already, but...

What exactly is the difference between Strategic and Tactical combat?

	12-05-2002 01:25									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Strategic level combat resolution would be the "general on a hill" approach, where you set a broad overall strategy and let your guys have at it.

Tactical level combat resolution, on the other hand, puts you down in the battlefield where you can maneuver your units, positioning them manually for flanks and such.

Advantages to both, really. With combat resolution at the strategic level, you're essentially acknowledging that this isn't a pure form wargame, but war does play a part. So...you abstract it, keep it fairly simple, and let the rest of the game shine through.

Tactical level resolution is far more "hands on" and directly engaging to the player. It is that direct engagement of the player that so many people with a wargamer's heart find appealing.

-=Vel=-

	12-05-2002 02:59									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Not surprisingly, "either-or" is winning out atm.

If going tactical, we do need to ensure it doesn't turn into a click-fest or course. I found Shogun: Total War to be a decent balance (shame scandisk decided to change c:\program files into a 16kb file - there wasn't much in it, but Shogun was one of the things that was...)

	12-05-2002 03:03									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I normally prefer tactical, but there are times when I want strategic like when it is my army of 30 against the enemy of 5.

	12-05-2002 03:50									#8
	Got spare money?

Thanks for the explanation Vel.

I voted for tactical ... I almost voted 'either-or' but thought that for those occasions that I didn't want Tactical battles, such as the scenario that RPM described, then as long as there is a decent quick-combat option - like Heroes of Might and Magic (3 not 4) - then that'll be OK.

It is fun to watch your guys beat the daylights out of the enemy.

With Strategic combat I'd feel too much like the computer was fighting the battles for me (which I'd want it to do sometimes, but rarely). I like having a more direct involvement in the battle system, rather than just being a 'general on a hill'.

Perhaps this is because I'm really more of an RPG-gamer than a TBS-gamer. Your mileage may vary.

	12-05-2002 03:52									#9
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Considering the depth this game is supposed to have, I'd say that strategic combat is the way to go. CB is not supposed to be purely a wargame, at least that is not how I see it. Therefore, tactical combat would only add another micromanagement layer for the player to deal with, albeit a fun layer, for sure.

	12-05-2002 04:01									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

You have a good point there Alexnm ... this isn't supposed to be a pure wargame, and I'm glad that it isn't. If I was gonna micromanage anything, however, then I'd want it to be combat, which, as you said, is a fun layer to the gameplay.

I'm somebody who always sets his workers to Auto in Civ3, though (after the first couple of cities).
I know I would win more often if I micro'ed them, but it is just SO dull (IMHO) that I would rather have fun and struggle than bore myself and win easily. I didn't play SMAC very much, though, and the terraforming system in that sounds like more fun than the realtively limited Civ3 worker options.

I suppose my general philosophy regarding micro-management would be: Fighting is fun, Farming is not.

	12-05-2002 06:11									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Firstly, I want some involvment in combat. Not just to move my army in and have it say "Ok, you won. 10 casualties" or similar.
That said, I'm going to be having a fair few battles in each game. Maybe an average of 3 a turn, maybe more, maybe less. But at that frequency, I don't want to be moving each and every unit, or each company - that level of depth would drag the game on forever which is a bad thing in SP and game-killing in MP. So I would have to say for this particular type of game, the broader strategic method would be better.

	12-05-2002 08:58									#12
	Suffering from ads?

Most wargames/non-wargames featuring tactical combat also have a "startegic" alternative, whether for the whole game or just a particular battle should the player just not feel like fighting it out.
I wouldn't know about the AI requirements, although most others seem to be able to pull it off without too many complaints.
A tactical combat option would be a definite value-adder but whether it would add enough to warrant the time involved in programming it is a bit outside my realm of speculation ...
(ie: It aint my time )

	12-05-2002 13:42									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well, the EU approach is to say that you're not God and can't influence the battle except for the battleground and the force composition. While, say, the Shogun approach is to say that you control all of your generals.

The former is more "realistic," but the latter is a heluva lot more fun.

And I'll take fun any day.

	13-05-2002 14:06									#14
	Suffering from ads?

How often is combat? If combat is infrequent, you can get away with tactical combat alone. If it is frequent, you need to have both.

Suppose you opt for abstract resolution (I think that's what you mean by "strategic combat") you still need to build a detailed model of tactical combat, and make your resolution routine to adhere to this as much as possible.

	13-05-2002 15:09									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Vel, you should take a look at the combat model for Interplay's Conquest of the New World. I doubt it's still in stores, but you can download it.

Basically it's a 3x5 grid and a "home row". The combat is all about gaining flanks and other unit combinations, and has a pretty high level of depth to it in my opinion.

P.S. - Vel, do you ever sign on AIM?

	13-05-2002 18:39									#16
	Suffering from ads?

Multiple combats per turn in the early game, and after the land grab phase, I'd imagine it'll be more about building and strategic strikes than overruns.

And, I'll see if I can find a copy of Conquest of the New World....might be something cool to use there....

-=Vel=-

	13-05-2002 19:25									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Conquest of the New World does have a pretty neat battle system from what I can remember of it. I found the 3x5 grid a bit too small, a slightly bigger (but not huge) grid such as 6x10 or something would preserve the same philosophy but allow more strategic options ... if only because it would allow you to construct a more complex army and have more room for flanking moves and stuff. The smallish grid sizes also make the battles fairly short ... Candle'Bre could do a lot worse than reworking the CotNW model.

	13-05-2002 19:32									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

Vel

I think you know my choice. I'd love to see a merge between shogun and civ. Shogun has excellent tactical combat but crappy strategy. Civ has excellent strategy (thats debatable I know) but crappy combat.

I think an important approach will be to keep the number of armies small/player but make the combat interesting and dependent on the strategic decisions.

	13-05-2002 20:01									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Anybody know if Conquest of the New World can be found over at Underdogs? We're operating at half staff at the old helpdesk this morning, and utterly slammed, so I've not had the opportunity to check that out yet...sigh...I HATE it when real life gets in the way....

Spencer: Good point, but we gotta also take care not to go too far in the other direction. A *classic* example of this would be Disciples II - bought the game day before yesterday doing some research....combat is...well, it doesn't suck, but it comes close....

Your "general" can tote all of three units around with him, it takes FOREVER to raise in levels, and is generally not very interactive. (each unit has one of two choices....attack (click the unit to hit), or defend (stand there). Not terribly interactive....

But, it's a fairly cool game, and the artwork is top notch (my favorite character is the Squire, who upgrades to a Witch Hunter with sufficient experience....rockin' graphic for the ol' Witch Hunters....and the Rangers aren't too bad either.

-=Vel=-

	13-05-2002 20:31									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Conquest of the new world deluxe edition is at

http://www.the-underdogs.org

along with a billion pop-ups.

For me, that combat model was too simple.