Strategy Versus Tactics

I usually want both in a game. I love to see a game laid out and figuring out my long term strategies, but I also like the challenges presented by a game so I have to adjust my long term plan.

Kailes wrote: Games that lack interesting strategic choices often feel like the players have no real agency and simply react to the current state.

This overused and wrong phrase kills me. It screams sheep (and no disrespect meant to Kailes). First of all, the proper phrase would be "players have no real SENSE OF AGENCY"*. You can't have agency unless you're an AGENT, and unless there's another player with their hand up your ass controlling your hands and thoughts, you can't be an agent**. Your MEEPLES are the agents, and you're the controller. Thus, you cannot really have any "agency" in a game because you're A) not in the game as a character (or agent of the player) and you're not a sockpuppet with another player's hand up your ass.


It's a psychobabble bullshit phrase to say in an elegant way, "players have no control". Just say, "PLAYERS HAVE NO CONTROL" or you sound like a plonker. Again, no disrespect meant to Kailes, and I really mean that. It's not your/his fault that there's too many sheep in the world, and wanting to sound smart and parrot other people you think are smart isn't a crime, it's human nature.



* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_agency
** en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_%28philosophy%29

I think Superfly lost agency with that post.

A purely strategic game where a competitive player needs to commit to a strategy from the start seems more like a game that will lack meaningful decisions, because the only important decision is made at the start.

A purely tactical game could offer plenty of significant decisions, as players adapt to changing conditions throughout the game. I can see where a rapidly changing environment could be frustrating with respect to long-term strategy, but a game with a lot of interactivity and tactics could keep everybody very involved throughout the game.

Shellhead wrote: A purely strategic game where a competitive player needs to commit to a strategy from the start seems more like a game that will lack meaningful decisions, because the only important decision is made at the start.

Kevin Wilson's Civ got whacked because of this. That you had to pick which end game condition you were going for and if it didn't pan out you couldn't adapt to another.

VonTush wrote: One reason, why I think I've come full circle back to minis games is because of the way that strategy and tactics is mixed together.

When I sit down for a game of Attack Wing we pick out a mission and that mission details certain objectives that I need to complete. It then takes strategic planning to determine the overall arcing plan with how I want to accomplish those objectives and then put together a fleet that is able to complete that narrative.

Then when my opponent and I finally sit down at the table, he looks and my fleet and I his, that's when I try to identify what his strategy is and develop tactics to adapt my strategy to counter his.

Yeah, this is kind of why I've really enjoyed our sporadic Blood Bowl league over the past 1.5 years. The different teams tend toward different strategies, passing the ball, fast players or strong bashy teams, or dwarven defences, etc. And then in the game you have the tactics of positioning players to create screens, assist blocks, make a blitz etc. One of my favorite teams to play with are humans, who are vanilla but very adaptable to in-game tactics.

SuperflyTNT wrote: . . . there's too many sheep in the world

Hey -- sheep have feelings too. Go easy on them.

So, what is the dividing line between strategy and tactic in a modern game that lasts an hour or less? Most modern games are so rigid that I don't see a way to place a definition for strategy one way or the other, and they're short. I think it's easier to establish a strategy in Risk than it is in Eclipse due to its longer, broader play and the openness of the board.

Last week I played Scoville, Roll for the Galaxy, and Valley of the Kings. Of the three, Scoville and Roll have no options that I can deem strategic. Valley of the Kings has the concept of "I'll go after these kinds of cards", but I don't know if I'd call that strategy. It maybe rates "approach" to me.

Presumably anything you decide prior to playing can be considered strategy?

S.

Sagrilarus wrote: So, what is the dividing line between strategy and tactic in a modern game that lasts an hour or less? Most modern games are so rigid that I don't see a way to place a definition for strategy one way or the other, and they're short. I think it's easier to establish a strategy in Risk than it is in Eclipse due to its longer, broader play and the openness of the board.

I think you're on to something with your observation that many modern games are too rigid for any strategies to develop. In many games the only decision you can make at the start of the game is which VP-engine you focus on. After that they are mostly tactical and very opportunistic. Five Tribes seems to be a good recent example of that. Or Dominion, although the base game offers almost no tactical decisions. In those games the player's role seems to be that of a computer, that calculates the best move or to discover a clever combo. They are a bit like puzzles, I guess.

In order to have interesting tactical decisions a game must on any given turn present several equally viable options to the player, which lead to markedly different gamestates, by opening up and taking away different options on future turns, both for the player himself and the other players. So basically tactical decisions must be ambiguous, require some commitment from the player and have implications for the game beyond the present turn. I think strategic decisions are very similar but come up much more rarely, maybe only in the beginning of the game, and require greater commitment. So much so that it becomes difficult to switch to another strategy.

You're probably right that this kind of decision is not available in the more mechanical games, because in those games turns play out very similar to one another. The game must be more open, which may mean that it becomes swingy, very interactive and that players will likely make moves that may turn out to be bad for them. Thus games with strategic depth may not be everyones cup of tea.

Egg Shen is right that none of these three aspects is more important than another for a game to be fun. However, I think games with strategic depth have greater replayability, because playing with a different strategy is a bit like playing a different game. The implications of a new mechanic will likely be discovered after a few games and after a dozen games or so you will likely have employed every tactic several times. But a strategy requires by definition a whole session to unfold, so you'll have to play quite a lot to experience all nuances.

Sagrilarus wrote: Last week I played Scoville, Roll for the Galaxy, and Valley of the Kings. Of the three, Scoville and Roll have no options that I can deem strategic. Valley of the Kings has the concept of "I'll go after these kinds of cards", but I don't know if I'd call that strategy. It maybe rates "approach" to me.


S.

What did you think of Scoville?

Space Ghost wrote:
What did you think of Scoville?

Solid euro, a bit of blocking in one phase of the game, but fundamentally it's resource management with no surprises. There's a chart in the game that shows how different colored peppers cross-pollinate each other and for the most part you can do it in your head from what you learned in grade school about mixing colors. A red plus a blue give you a purple, a red plus a yellow give you an orange, etc. Mixing secondary colors invariably get you brown which is more useful for recipes (something you purchase) but it's a dead end on making peppers. Black, white and clear complete the set, and the trick is to collect peppers, use them to buy other peppers and recipes. You get big points for recipes, little points when you buy peppers and medium points for being the first to plant certain colors. We've played twice and the two plays were very different. I liked it, in spite of it not really being my kind of game.

I also like Knights of Air and Steam by the same designer, and you can feel his personality in both plays. I think this one is a Kickstarter and it's an indication the Kickstarter can produce good games. In fact I think in the coming years buyers will become more discerning and publishers more professional as the concept matures.

The thing is, some cards come up, and you're ready to go. It's largely a fully deterministic game with the exception of some new information coming up before you take your turns. I don't see how it lends itself to strategy concepts, unless you consider learning how to play "strategy". I don't think anyone here is thinking that way.

S.

jeb wrote: Yeah, like 7 WONDERS. Such an exercise in multiplayer solitaire. I like drafting MAGIC THE GATHERING, but the intent is, you know, to play a game after doing it. 7 WONDERS to me felt like a draft and then we got out the latest issue of Wizard and looked up the prices for our draft picks. Highest total won.

Although you're still not playing another game with your draft picks afterward, it's a losing plan to ignore the other players in a 3-player game, which is where 7 Wonders is at its best. You see every hand of cards twice, there are no duplicate cards, and you're everyone's neighbor. So you have to pay attention to other player's tableaus to guess what you think will wheel, every draft or wonder choice cuts that card out of the game, and there's more of a contest for military. The game gets worse as you add more players, which is how most people end up playing it. "Uh, we've got 6 people, what's a game that none of us hate?"

Or you just don't like it, which is fine. To me it feels like all the decisions of a 90 minute Euro packed into 30 minutes, and possibly with more interaction.

I'm not sure 7 Wonders rates tactical or strategic, because to me it feels like your first few cards determine your direction and you play to them as best you can from what follows.

Again, a game where your decision set is very limited.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Space Ghost wrote:
What did you think of Scoville?

Solid euro, a bit of blocking in one phase of the game, but fundamentally it's resource management with no surprises. [Snip more sage commentary]

I played this a couple of weeks, and it this game is extremely AP prone. And the blocking component Sag mentions means that you typically have to wait for your turn, and then go and look for your optimal move. Of course I play with a bunch of fun murdering, cube pushers, so your results may vary. It's a solid design and I want to like it, but the blocking part slowed everything down to where the game out stayed its welcome. Of course, that was also 60% of the interaction, so damned if you do, damned if you don't.

There's some first-game-itis in that though. Our second game a week later went much more quickly in that phase.

Jexik wrote: Or you just don't like it, which is fine. To me it feels like all the decisions of a 90 minute Euro packed into 30 minutes, and possibly with more interaction.

The last time I played 7 Wonders, it took 2.5 hours. Someone thought it would be good with eight. Long story short, there was no viable strategy in playing offensively. The winner was on the end of the table (as were the higher scores in general) where the players each focused on gaining points, not depriving them.

I can see how it would be a much better game with three, though.