Does anyone still play wargames?

Patrick wrote:
> Dav Vandenbroucke wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:32:15 +1200, Kharsis <kharsis.RemoveThis@ihug.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Total War is a good game if you like using tactics.
>>
>>There are wargamers who don't like using tactics? There are wargames
>>that don't require them?
>
>
> I think there are wargame(r)s that are more strategy oriented, and
> those that are more tactics oriented.
>
> Sometimes it's just a matter of scale: e.g., a game that covers all of
> WWII on a map of the world is unlikely to portray much of the
> nitty-gritty infighting of tactical engagements. Of course there are
> still game tactics involved in the play, but that's true of any game.
>
> When it comes to game tactics, it's hard to tell where to draw the
> line. Some say chess is a mostly tactical game (with some strategy),
> while go is a mostly strategic game (with some tactics).
>
> I suspect Kharsis is saying that Rome: Total War does a good job of
> presenting military tactics in game form.
>
> To me, that's an aspect of what's often called "realism" in wargames
> (i.e., how well the game simulates war). Years ago, realism meant
> everything to me in wargaming; now it doesn't mean as much anymore.
> I'm happy to do without a lot of realism for the sake of a game that's
> more fun to play.
>
> I browsed through the screen shots of Rome: Total War a while back, and
> it all looked *too* realistic to me. I don' t want a game that puts me
> right there on the battlefield; I just want one that lets me try my
> hand at exercising strategy & tactics while also indulging in a little
> make-believe.
>
> Btw, another very good computer strategy game, which I forgot to
> mention last time, is Lost Admiral Returns. It's a remake of an old
> game, and the graphics and interface are way outdated--but the gaming
> challenge is superb! For a look-see, go to:
> http://www.lostadmiralreturns.com
>
> --Patrick
>


thanx patrick you covered what I was trying to get across perfectly.

Some games eg Close Combat are more tactically oriented; whereas others
eg hearts of Iron are more strategically oriented.

Kharsis

Loz Hensel wrote:
> Can you briefly describe the differnece between stategy and tactics. I
> know there is a difference, and I vaguely know what it is, but I'm not
> entirely sure where to draw the line.

You're in good company, then. Most people are unsure where to draw the
line.

Here's a link to a discussion among firefighters that addresses the
difference between strategy & tactics. What they say also applies to
military strategy & tactics as well as game strategy & tactics.
http://tinyurl.com/eq999

In a footnote, naval theorist A. T. Mahan gives a handy mnemonic
device. He says TACTics are what you use when your forces come into
conTACT with the enemy; strategy is all the thinking and planning you
do when your forces are *not* in contact with the enemy. If you think
about that, and use some imagination, it seems to work even for game
tactics & strategy. In bridge, for example, strategic thinking happens
mostly in the bidding phase (when cards are not actually being played,
and thus it could be said that "forces are not yet in conTACT");
tactical thinking happens mostly during cardplay (when forces--i.e.,
cards--are in contTACT).

In a computer game like Heroes of Might & Magic, the big shift from
strategy to tactics shows up as a switch to the tactical battle screen.
When forces are not in contact, you're maneuvering around the big map,
gathering resources, exploring, and setting up strategic positions.
The moment one of your armies bumps into an enemy army, you're switched
to a battle map, and now tactics come into play.

In chess, anytime you're thinking, "If I move here, then he can move
there, and then..." you're using tactics. Chess strategy is more like,
"Shall I try to open up the center of the board, or leave the center
closed and launch a king-side attack?"

Hope this catches the gist of it.

--Patrick