Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8705832" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Oh, definitely. You might be able to develop a compromise sort of game, where both layers are relatively light but feed into one another in interesting ways. But in general, it's not going to work to try to have a game that simultaneously offers rich, detailed tactical challenges and comprehensive, thorough strategic challenges.As some of my examples have shown (and as the "combat as war"/"combat as sport" alleged dichotomy tries to assert, but IMO does a poor job of it), the two methods kind of have exactly opposite fundamental assumptions. The tactical-focused game is a matter of quick decisions, synergies, building up to impressive finishers, etc.; advantage should arise from the sequence of decisions. The strategic-focused game is a matter of logistics, exploitation, and long-term planning; advantage should arise from the sagacity of decisions. Both can take on a puzzle-like nature, but in very different ways; tactical puzzles are (intentionally) very similar to chess puzzles, while strategic puzzles are more like lateral thinking exercises. Both can involve immense amounts of creativity, limitations, surprises, and head games, but they just operate on totally different underlying assumptions.Or, to combine the two together: it would be like having to solve a jigsaw puzzle where in order to place a piece, you have to play a hand of cards, and every time you lose a hand of cards, a piece you've already put down gets tossed back into the pile. Sure, it could potentially be fun to do, but naively stacking the two approaches on top of each other generally results in something that is less than the sum of its parts.</blockquote>

Verification