03-28-2003, 08:20 PM
Taken this off the R:TW thread to avoid hijacking it further.<br>
<br>
<em>One pet peeve I've always had, is that strategy games never set the level of your command.</em><br>
<br>
Well, here you hit against one of the core issues in the "realism vs gameplay" discussion. Now personally, I don't agree that such a conflict really exists, but there is a conflict between the level of abstraction and gameplay. Very often, trying to select a level of abstraction which seems closer to real life ends up making for a boring game.<br>
<br>
The stellar example probably being Peter Turcan's napoleonic war games ... attempts to be very realistic, and ends up being rather boring. The problem with these kind of games is that it is very hard to transmit to the player the same kind of tension & excitement that an army commander must have felt on the field of battle. The player, after all, does not stand to loose his life & see his country enslaved if he fouls up.<br>
<br>
The opposite end of the spectrum, of course, is the sort where you have to micro-manage every aspect of the battle, since none of your units are able to think on their own. Not very realistic, but a good deal more fun to play.<br>
<br>
There are also the strictly abstract system - such as the GBOH games.<br>
<br>
And then, of course, you have a game like Legion, where the tactical battle is really just an abstraction for an auto-combat resolution system.<br>
<br>
Despite the problems, I tend more toward a Peter Turcan style game than the STW/Praetorian or GBOH system. The main reason being that in the latter two cases, the AI will unavoidably foul up in the game and loose out to any competent human player. And in Imperium, such a tactical engine would be a problem - what's the point of representing Hannibal, if any two-bit Roman general is going to walk all over him with half his force?<br>
<br>
I have the fond hope that with the right presentation, a good user interface, and pacier gameplay, a Peter Turcan style game should provide a good battle game experience, but that supposition remains to be tested.<br>
<br>
But I'd be interested in hearing what it is you people consider to be the "fun" in tactical battle games you've played.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>
<br>
<em>One pet peeve I've always had, is that strategy games never set the level of your command.</em><br>
<br>
Well, here you hit against one of the core issues in the "realism vs gameplay" discussion. Now personally, I don't agree that such a conflict really exists, but there is a conflict between the level of abstraction and gameplay. Very often, trying to select a level of abstraction which seems closer to real life ends up making for a boring game.<br>
<br>
The stellar example probably being Peter Turcan's napoleonic war games ... attempts to be very realistic, and ends up being rather boring. The problem with these kind of games is that it is very hard to transmit to the player the same kind of tension & excitement that an army commander must have felt on the field of battle. The player, after all, does not stand to loose his life & see his country enslaved if he fouls up.<br>
<br>
The opposite end of the spectrum, of course, is the sort where you have to micro-manage every aspect of the battle, since none of your units are able to think on their own. Not very realistic, but a good deal more fun to play.<br>
<br>
There are also the strictly abstract system - such as the GBOH games.<br>
<br>
And then, of course, you have a game like Legion, where the tactical battle is really just an abstraction for an auto-combat resolution system.<br>
<br>
Despite the problems, I tend more toward a Peter Turcan style game than the STW/Praetorian or GBOH system. The main reason being that in the latter two cases, the AI will unavoidably foul up in the game and loose out to any competent human player. And in Imperium, such a tactical engine would be a problem - what's the point of representing Hannibal, if any two-bit Roman general is going to walk all over him with half his force?<br>
<br>
I have the fond hope that with the right presentation, a good user interface, and pacier gameplay, a Peter Turcan style game should provide a good battle game experience, but that supposition remains to be tested.<br>
<br>
But I'd be interested in hearing what it is you people consider to be the "fun" in tactical battle games you've played.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy <br>
Designer/Developer <br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i></i>