Recommend
39 
 Thumb up
 Hide
82 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BattleLore» Forums » Reviews

Subject: Battlelore - The Good. The Bad. The Verdict. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
Define what you mean by 'drawing the right cards'. There are more cards than just flank cards. There are more ways to run a decent offensive or defensive strategy than by hoping that you draw the 'right cards'.

What you seem to be saying is that you have to get do whatever the cards dictate you can do and there is no way to implement a strategy without drawing the cards that allow you to do what you want and so you are left maximizing whatever you get into your hand and it is up to luck as to what you draw. That is a reactionary stance and will lose against the good Memoir and BL players that I know. It's poor playing

What I am saying to you is that skillful players take a different stance, a much more pro-active one. One where you make the cards in your hand conform to the strategy that you are trying to do. Somewhere around half of the cards do not specify where you can order units. I am much more familiar with Memoir '44 and its cards than BL, but the principle is the same. In this view, there is no such thing as the 'right cards' because the game is decided on how you implement the cards, not what they activate. You learn how to make the cards in your hand the 'right cards' and then it doesn't matter what you draw.

So no, what cards I draw doesn't really make a difference as to whether or not I pursue my strategy, or really how effectively I do so. There are enough cards that offer you enough flexibility and enough options that it's not a big deal. Just because someone can't see or recognize something, doesn't mean it's not there.

And while you didn't overtly say that you needed perfect control and perfect information to do a strategy, it's rather strongly implied in what you have written, both in the quoted section above and your other posts. Read your posts.
Nope, never said you do what the cards dictate.

Skillfull players do take a proactive stance. They know what they should achieve (the goals they must pursue) in order to win the game. And there are easier and harder goals to pursue. They know which ones are more achievable and go for them.

But still, that is not a strategy. It's defining goals and objectives, and pursuing them through tactical goal-aligned actions the whole game.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How can you not know that? How hard is it to plan on (as a non-specific, non-optimal example) securing the right flank through getting your archers in the trees, prepare to hold the middle for a counter attack, and focusing on a left flank attack with your cav, backed up by your infantry? With that plan, you can then choose which units you are going to target from the outset to achieve your needed kills. That's strategy, right?

Now implementation is the trick, but within that framework, there are many ways that you can execute, but that's tactics. When to execute the counter-attack, how to make sure your right flank is secured, how you assault the left flank, you can't know that for sure. To know that you would need perfect information.

I would say that based on your limited and narrow definition of strategy, you cannot name a single game that is strategic. No one can tell you exactly how they will implement a strategy before the game, not even chess or go, because things come up that will alter than implementation. But if you are set on that unachievable definition of strategy, I agree with you. By that definition BattleLore joins all other games, and most other pursuits in life, in being bereft of strategy.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Borden
United States
Somerset
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It seems this discussion is really about what is considered strategic planning and what’s considered tactical planning. Both sides seem to be agreeing that you plan ahead (perhaps to different degrees), you just seem to be calling it different things.

Since I interpret my turn to turn planning as more reactionary to the current situation and available resources than following a predetermined plan, I consider it a mostly tactical game.

I do have an overall plan every game as I’ve tried to outline in other posts: Keep formations, rotate out wounded units, conserve resources where possible, etc. Is that considered strategic? I don’t think so. To me, strategic planning requires more control over movement (I’m guessing that the perfect information comments were about knowing how you could move your troops all game).

I do look at my starting position and form very rough ideas of a strategy. “I want to form up the units here if possible. I’d like to hit the opponent’s line at that weak point.” There’s a lot of “if possible” and “I’d like to” type of thoughts. Since I will need the resources to carry out those plans, I do not refer to it as strategic planning. I can pretty much always move units to a position at some point if I really wanted to. If I only have a blue banner and a 2|0|0 that can get my units where I want them, is it still wise to go if I’ll have no further orders when I do close with the enemy?

I set up turns in advance as much as possible. If I have 2 or 3 cards that can be put together, I do it. Since it’s based on the resource available, I consider it tactical but could see someone else call it strategic.

For comparison, I would start a Warhammer game with a solid strategy before we begin playing: I set this unit up here and will move them to the high ground. Put my mounted units here to protect their flank. I’ll concentrate attacks on his light calvary first with my range. If he advances on this unit, I’ll move them back towards this position. Since he took a lot of that unit type, I want the battle to….

I can’t do the same in Battlelore before the game, except when setting up the war council.

Just because I am planning my actions based on the resource available doesn’t mean I am playing just a reactionary game to my opponent. I am trying to shape the battle so I have an advantage.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rarbelaez wrote:
Nope, never said you do what the cards dictate...But still, that is not a strategy. It's defining goals and objectives, and pursuing them through tactical goal-aligned actions the whole game.
Again we run into another thing that you can say you never said. True, you never said those exact words. However, almost every single one of your posts has implied or intimated that you must react to what the cards tell you to do and not the other way around and that is why there is no strategy.

I always thought that forming a strategy was the act of defining goals and objectives and figuring out how you will attempt to achieve them. And I always thought that implementing strategy involved making tactical, goal-aligned actions that were in line with your strategy.

I maintain that under your definition, no game is strategic because you cannot have the perfect information required for your definition to qualify something as strategic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PlanetSmasher wrote:
I do look at my starting position and form very rough ideas of a strategy. “I want to form up the units here if possible. I’d like to hit the opponent’s line at that weak point.” There’s a lot of “if possible” and “I’d like to” type of thoughts. Since I will need the resources to carry out those plans, I do not refer to it as strategic planning. I can pretty much always move units to a position at some point if I really wanted to. If I only have a blue banner and a 2|0|0 that can get my units where I want them, is it still wise to go if I’ll have no further orders when I do close with the enemy?

...For comparison, I would start a Warhammer game with a solid strategy before we begin playing: I set this unit up here and will move them to the high ground. Put my mounted units here to protect their flank. I’ll concentrate attacks on his light calvary first with my range. If he advances on this unit, I’ll move them back towards this position. Since he took a lot of that unit type, I want the battle to….
See, and I see no difference between these two ways of strategic planning. The only difference between them is that you can be more confident in planning the specific tactics of your Warhammer game than you can about BattleLore. But, as with BL, if your opponent beats you to higher ground, gets unreasonably lucky on his attacks on your mounted units, etc, your strategy could be rendered obsolete in a few turns. I think that the rough idea of figuring out where you want your units in BL to go and what you want them to do is strategic planning, there's just a lot more that can go wrong, and so more that you need to take into account when you get into the tactical action stage. You can't know how your strategy will play out once the game has started, and that goes for any game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:

Again we run into another thing that you can say you never said. True, you never said those exact words. However, almost every single one of your posts has implied or intimated that you must react to what the cards tell you to do and not the other way around and that is why there is no strategy.
Man, I don't imply. I'm very direct. If I say high, I mean high... If I say low, I mean low...

I have the weirdest flashback...it's like talking to long-gone ex-girlfriends...

EventHorizon wrote:

I always thought that forming a strategy was the act of defining goals and objectives and figuring out how you will attempt to achieve them.
Yes. you are correct. If by figuring out you mean defining the specifics before the start. If you mean figuring out as the game progresses, that's tactics.


EventHorizon wrote:

And I always thought that implementing strategy involved making tactical, goal-aligned actions that were in line with your strategy.
Yes, you're right. But you can also make tactical goal-oriented decisions even if you didn't define a strategy. And that's my point exactly. That's what you do in BL.

EventHorizon wrote:

I maintain that under your definition, no game is strategic because you cannot have the perfect information required for your definition to qualify something as strategic.
Wrong. In sports, you don't have perfect information, and still, you can design a strategy, communicate it to your players, and they will try to carry it out, adjusting tactically to what the other team does.

American football is a good example.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jay Borden
United States
Somerset
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
See, and I see no difference between these two ways of strategic planning. The only difference between them is that you can be more confident in planning the specific tactics....
I call it more strategic because I know I can move my unit to the high ground regardless of my starting hand. If my starting hand doesn't have a card to move a unit, it can't move. So my strategy is dependent on the resources. Yeah I'll get a card eventually, but the situation is likely to be quite different.



EventHorizon wrote:
But, as with BL, if your opponent beats you to higher ground, gets unreasonably lucky on his attacks on your mounted units, etc, your strategy could be rendered obsolete in a few turns.
Quite true. Agree 100%.

EventHorizon wrote:
I think that the rough idea of figuring out where you want your units in BL to go and what you want them to do is strategic planning, there's just a lot more that can go wrong, and so more that you need to take into account when you get into the tactical action stage.
The rough ideas don't mean much to me since the tactical part will trump it. I feel that tactical action stage is where the meat of the game is, so I call it a tactical game.

As I said, I think the discussion is over the term we are using.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PlanetSmasher wrote:
It seems this discussion is really about what is considered strategic planning and what’s considered tactical planning. Both sides seem to be agreeing that you plan ahead (perhaps to different degrees), you just seem to be calling it different things.

Since I interpret my turn to turn planning as more reactionary to the current situation and available resources than following a predetermined plan, I consider it a mostly tactical game.
I agree 100%
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:

See, and I see no difference between these two ways of strategic planning. The only difference between them is that you can be more confident in planning the specific tactics of your Warhammer game than you can about BattleLore.
There, Jon, lies the difference. One is strategic, the other one is tactic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Quote:
I call it more strategic because I know I can move my unit to the high ground regardless of my starting hand. If my starting hand doesn't have a card to move a unit, it can't move. So my strategy is dependent on the resources. Yeah I'll get a card eventually, but the situation is likely to be quite different.
Well, yes, Warhammer is more strategic than BattleLore, but that doesn't mean that BL isn't strategic. That and I just don't see the BL strategy as dependant on resources or cards. :shrug: I imagine that it's either a difference in paradigms or difference in definitions. Personally, I consider as a rule of thumb strategy and strategic planning as any plans that you make before you start playing and tactics and tactical planning as anything that you do after you start playing. That's not an official definition, but it's close enough.

Quote:
Man, I don't imply. I'm very direct. If I say high, I mean high... If I say low, I mean low...

I have the weirdest flashback...it's like talking to long-gone ex-girlfriends...
There's at least one other person on this thread who is reading what you are writing the same way I am. Maybe your ex was right...

Quote:
Yes. you are correct. If by figuring out you mean defining the specifics before the start. If you mean figuring out as the game progresses, that's tactics.
I maintain that you cannot define specifics before the game starts. You can define a framework with which to work inside. That framework is strategy, filling it in is the tactics. You can't define specifics before playing chess, go, or any other game, or even in sports. You define the principles that you are going to work with in the situation, but cannot know the future. In what game can you define the specific tactics that you will use, aside from the first turn, with any reasonable expectation of accuracy? I can't think of one.

Quote:
Yes, you're right. But you can also make tactical goal-oriented decisions even if you didn't define a strategy. And that's my point exactly. That's what you do in BL.
Of course I make tactical goal-oriented decisions. And I also outline a strategy. Those are not mutually exclusive. I do both.

Quote:
There, Jon, lies the difference. One is strategic, the other one is tactic.
No, both are strategic. You just have more control over the specific implementation in one game as opposed to the other. If I plan something, and how I will do it, that's strategic even if I am not able to do it due to circumstances beyond my control. In American football, since you brought it up, I can plan to run a Cover Two defense in order to neutralize the wide receivers. But if the opponent's running game starts working, and it becomes suicide to be dropping my MLB and rolling my safeties, I must adapt. That doesn't mean that I didn't have a strategy and plan how I would implement it.

Same with this game. I plan what I want to do, where I want to go, and what my main targets are, and what I will do with my units. Once you get cards, you mesh what you are trying to do with your cards and go from there. From there on, you are playing tactically. But having a plan and knowing how you want to accomplish it it very crucial, and that's strategy.

Btw- PlanetSmasher, I've read your posts on BL and was wondering if you are on VASSAL. I'd be interested in playing against you sometime because you seem to be approaching things from a different perspective than my normal opponents.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
getting your archers in the trees, prepare to hold the middle for a counter attack, and focusing on a left flank attack with your cav, backed up by your infantry? With that plan, you can then choose which units you are going to target from the outset to achieve your needed kills. That's strategy, right?
yup.

EventHorizon wrote:

Now implementation is the trick, but within that framework, there are many ways that you can execute, but that's tactics.
Nope.

Implementation is not tactics. Tactics is how you cope with unforseen, unpredictable events, in order to keep getting close to your goals. It's how you manage things you didn't plan on.

There are many ways to implement? Not necessarily. There could possibly be some ways to implement, but only if you draw cards that allow you to do that.

If you don't have usable cards -usable within the strategy- (and that is a posibility) , you'll be dead and buried if you stick to your "strategy". So you probably should throw it away (keeping your objectives and discarding your initial plan) and do something else that helps you achieve those objectives... and that is playing tactically.


EventHorizon wrote:

When to execute the counter-attack, how to make sure your right flank is secured, how you assault the left flank, you can't know that for sure. To know that you would need perfect information.
Yes. And it is not a prerrequisite of Strategy.

EventHorizon wrote:

I would say that based on your limited and narrow definition of strategy, you cannot name a single game that is strategic. No one can tell you exactly how they will implement a strategy before the game, not even chess or go, because things come up that will alter than implementation.
It's not narrow. It's exact.

On the contrary. I can name lots of games. Warhammer is a good example. American Football another clear example, as I pointed out in another reply. You can have a strategy, and you cope with changing, unpredictable conditions (and they're impredictable because of imperfect information) by means of tactics. It's quite simple, really.

EventHorizon wrote:

But if you are set on that unachievable definition of strategy, I agree with you. By that definition BattleLore joins all other games, and most other pursuits in life, in being bereft of strategy.
[/q]
Actually, in information theory, game theory, strategic planning, and several other areas of knowledge it's the common definition, and it's not unachievable... Aplies to the examples I mentioned, and lots more. But I do think it's un-explainable, as I've done my best to explain it and make my point, and I still can't get through.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
If you don't have usable cards -usable within the strategy- (and that is a posibility) , you'll be dead and buried if you stick to your "strategy". So you probably should throw it away (keeping your objectives and discarding your initial plan) and do something else that helps you achieve those objectives... and that is playing tactically.
Correct. That is playing tactically. The fact that I had a plan and knew what I was going to do and how I was going to do it, that's strategy. They aren't mutually exclusive, they are complementary.

Now I would argue that pretty much any cards you get in your hand can be used to advance your strategy, but that's not what you are talking about, although initially I thought it was.

Quote:
Implementation is not tactics. Tactics is how you cope with unforseen, unpredictable events, in order to keep getting close to your goals. It's how you manage things you didn't plan on.
This is an unnecessary parsing of words. As soon as you start something, unpredictable things happen. Planning how you are implementing and actually doing the implementing are two different things. The first is startegic planning, the second is tactics.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Honestly, I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways and there is no real disagreement. But acknowledging that goes against the unspoken rules of any forum I've ever been on.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rarbelaez wrote:
EventHorizon wrote:


Now implementation is the trick, but within that framework, there are many ways that you can execute, but that's tactics.
Nope.

Implementation is not tactics. Tactics is how you cope with unforseen, unpredictable events, in order to keep getting close to your goals. It's how you manage things you didn't plan on.
Now we're just playing with words!

I reckon I can easily dig up a different definition of tactics for every day of the week so an argument based on such a specific and limmited one seems pointless.

In most of those definitions tactics are not just reactionary they are also about successful implimentation.

Take the Napoleonic Impule system, it's largely an aggressive tactical doctrine. It's flexible in how it can be implimented against differing tactical problems but the emphasis is on maintaining the initiative and making the oposition react to you. It has the flexability to deal with the unforeseen and the unpredictable but thats not what defines it as a tactical system.

The Warhammer analogy is a good one but only as far as it goes. You may plan to put troops in a wood but if it's between you and the oposition wins initiative and gets there first it's not going to happen. You can be sure you're going to move a unit, as long as it's not destroyed, broken, or struck by some spell before you get the chance. Just because BL so obviously uses cards to break up the players ability to know what he can do with a unit and when doesn't mean that the same issues don't apply to other systems in a less obvious way. Those variable/unknowns however don't mean that you can't have a strategy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that it is quite clear that Battlelore is an almost 100% tactical game; there is no strategy.

The problem in this thread is that the difference between the two has not been properly defined in the generally accepted terms, instead varying wildly from person to person.

Confusing the definition of strategy and tactics is very common and nothing to become defensive about - the incorrect use of the term "strategy" is widely accepted by the general public, which in a sense means that its incorrect usage is not really incorrect! So please don't take offense, I'm just trying to help out on my favorite topic...

The biggest mistake in defining strategy which I see in the debate above is in trying to use planning as a distinction between strategy and tactics. Almost every planning concept descibed in the posts above can be applied to both strategy and tactics, which is what is causing the disconnect between the two sides. Jay/PlanetSmasher hit the nail on the head here:
Quote:
It seems this discussion is really about what is considered strategic planning and what’s considered tactical planning. Both sides seem to be agreeing that you plan ahead (perhaps to different degrees), you just seem to be calling it different things.
Maneuver is what crosses the line from strategy to tactics and creates the grey area - not planning.

It is important to clarify that "planning tactics" before the game starts, several turns in advance or even months ahead of time does not make it strategy - it's still just planning your tactics. And vice-versa for strategy. I think everything in the posts above being called strategy is really just tactical planning and can be applied to both strategy and tactics, which is why there is so much debate.

In BattleLore terms, strategy would encompass the decisions and circumstances that led up to the specific Scenario you are about to play - why you and your opponent are fighting on this particular battlefield and how you got to that point, why these particular forces are engaged in this battle and most importantly - what advantage you hope to gain by winning the battle. In the simplest terms, strategy is what leads to a battle and tactics is the battle itself. The line can often blur between the two in real life and in many games, but Battlelore being a recreation of a single battle - I don't see it here.

Maneuvering on a battlefield is tactics. Decisions on use of the cards is tactical planning because it is guiding how, when and where you are maneuvering your units during the battle. Every decision you make in a game of Battlelore is a battlefield decision.
The decision to play Battlelore was probably strategic.

Here are a few related definitions to help out:

To quote B.H. Liddell Hart from his classic book, Strategy:

Quote:
"As regards the relation of strategy to tactics, while in execution the borderline is often shadowy, and it is difficult to decide exactly where a strategic movement ends and a tactical movement begins, yet in conception the two are distinct. Tactics lies in and fills the province of fighting. Strategy not only stops at the frontier, but has for it's purpose the reduction of fighting to the slenderest possible proportions."
Another simple clarification, I think from Moltke:

Quote:
Strategy takes you to the battlefield, Tactics takes place on the battlefield.
Since a game of Battlelore starts with setting up a battle, I think this makes it pretty clear that there is no strategy in the game and the rules give us the uncommon luxury of not really having a shadowy borderline in this case. Selecting the War Council is the closest thing to a grey area - but since the War Coucil's abilities are purely tactical I would argue that selecting the War Council is still just tactical planning.

It also sounds like Call to Arms may have a grey area - selecting your troops.

Again this is all just my personal opinion, but it is based an generally accepted definitions of strategy and tactics that seem to be missing from the posts above.

The most interesting thing to me - if you take this definition and go back through the posts, you can clearly see all the disconnects in the conversations and why both sides are right and wrong at various points, which is what causes debate in the first place, right?

[Edited excessively as I keep thinking of more stuff to say and spelling it wrong...]
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Surya is pure Eurosnoot and proud of it!
New Zealand
Napier
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blindspot wrote:
Quote:
- Luck. There is a good dose of luck in this game, probably more than any other highly rated game that I own. There is enough luck to thwart any well laid plan and give the victory to someone who may not deserve it. With dice rolling and card drawing, this is to be expected. Oh well, such is life on the field of battle.
There is a good dose of luck, but I don't think its enough to allow an undeserving player to beat a skilled player.
No, but if both players are equally good, the one with the most luck will probably win. That kills the game for me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Surya wrote:
blindspot wrote:
Quote:
- Luck. There is a good dose of luck in this game, probably more than any other highly rated game that I own. There is enough luck to thwart any well laid plan and give the victory to someone who may not deserve it. With dice rolling and card drawing, this is to be expected. Oh well, such is life on the field of battle.
There is a good dose of luck, but I don't think its enough to allow an undeserving player to beat a skilled player.
No, but if both players are equally good, the one with the most luck will probably win. That kills the game for me.
This is the case with any game with a random element where the players are close to the same skill level. Any time skill becomes equal and cancels out, the random elements of a game are disproportionately noticed because that's what the game turns on be it this game, Carcassonne, ASL, etc (unless the random elements are negligible, like in Caylus).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ansbach,

I agree with you concrening the real life definition of strategy and tactics. That kind of division makes sense as far as real life goes. However, I doubt its usefulness when talking about games because under that definition, no board game is, or really can be, strategic. Even games that are supposed to be strategic are not under your proposed definition. For example, pursuing a Kill Germany First strategy in Axis and Allies would be an example of tactical planning, not strategy, right? Even a game like chess or go would be considered tatical under this definition, right?

Applying the Paula Rule (see American Idol), I stand by my personal definition as a much more functional definition where board games are concerned (Strategy- any planning before you play, tactics- any planning and decisioning after you start playing). While I admit that in a general sense, it is not an accurate definition, I don't feel that the accurate general definition is very useful when considering games. That being said, at this level it is a bunch of splitting hairs as to what is and what isn't whatever term we're looking at.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
An interesting opinion and I fully support your right to stand by your own definition, but could you explain in more detail why you say games that are supposed to be strategic don't fall under this definition?

In my opinion A&A is a great example of a game that is mostly strategy. A Kill Germany First plan, purchasing units and factories, moving them in to battle - I think these are all defined as strategic decisions. Decisions leading to battle. Tactics are pretty abstract in A&A, but selecting which units to remove during a battle would be a tactical decision - a decision on the battlefield.

I think in the purest military sense, yes, Chess is technically tactical and not strategic. But how many books are there called chess tactics instead of chess strategy? Thus the confusion.

It also seems to be a matter of scale - if a Battlelore map represented a continent and each roll of the dice was a large battle, is it now strategic instead of tactical? Now that is a grey area!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with you. What you are saying seems to be coming from a scale standpoint, where what I am talking about has to do with a planning/gameplay standpoint. I agree that the battles in BattleLore are tactical in scale. There's no way you can argure that. However, this conversation started because it sounded like someone was saying that there was no way to make any long-term plans concerning this game, and that it was a turn-by-turn resource (card) maximization game. I disagree with that way of thinking and think that there is a lot of planning that can be done before you start playing. Using a scale definition, Warhammer becomes a purely tactical game as well because it is modelling a single battle and not a theater. I do not think that what you are proposing is similar in any real fashion to what was being proposed before. You are making sense, not semantic arguements about splitting hairs.

My definition for board games is based on the gameplay, not the scale. From a game play stand point of strategy vs tactics, there is little difference between Axis and Allies turns and a BattleLore turn (although mechanically they are very different). An example of a purely tactical game would be Carcassonne or El Grande, where there is no point and no way of planning beforehand what you are going to do because the starting situation varies with each game.

But it becomes an arguement of semantics where both sides are correct using the definitions that they are using and looking up the concepts in the dictionary yields no right answer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
However, this conversation started because it sounded like someone was saying that there was no way to make any long-term plans concerning this game, and that it was a turn-by-turn resource (card) maximization game. I disagree with that way of thinking and think that there is a lot of planning that can be done before you start playing. Using a scale definition, Warhammer becomes a purely tactical game as well because it is modelling a single battle and not a theater. I do not think that what you are proposing is similar in any real fashion to what was being proposed before. You are making sense, not semantic arguements about splitting hairs.
I entirely agree. Confusing as it may seem the discussion, as far as I could tell, was not about strategy and tactics (although we missused the terms often enough to confuse anybody. ) It was about whether there was any merit in trying to carry out a plan in Battlelore.

At least that's how it started.............
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EventHorizon wrote:
From a game play stand point of strategy vs tactics, there is little difference between Axis and Allies turns and a BattleLore turn (although mechanically they are very different). An example of a purely tactical game would be Carcassonne or El Grande, where there is no point and no way of planning beforehand what you are going to do because the starting situation varies with each game.

But it becomes an arguement of semantics where both sides are correct using the definitions that they are using and looking up the concepts in the dictionary yields no right answer.
Yes, which is why I originally said:
blindspot wrote:
Quote:
- It's more about tactical decisions. Besides the war council selection, strategy doesn't play much of a role. Some won't see this as a bad thing, but I do value strategy when "war" is involved. This game doesn't provide that.
From a Military/simulation standpoint the game is tactical. Speaking in terms of gameplay, however, there is also strategy in the choice of which command cards to play or to not play and when.
[/q]
What I should have done is ask if the original post really meant to say
Quote:
- It's more about tacticalturn-based decisions. Besides the war council selection, strategy planning ahead doesn't play much of a role. Some won't see this as a bad thing, but I do value strategyplanning ahead when "war" is involved. This game doesn't provide that.
To which I would have naturally disagreed, instead of providing fuel for semantic hair splitting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blindspot wrote:
instead of providing fuel for semantic hair splitting.
"Fuel for semantic hair splitting"..........isn't that what drives discussion on the Geek?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberto Arbelaez
United States
Boca Raton
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Skipp wrote:
EventHorizon wrote:
However, this conversation started because it sounded like someone was saying that there was no way to make any long-term plans concerning this game, and that it was a turn-by-turn resource (card) maximization game. I disagree with that way of thinking and think that there is a lot of planning that can be done before you start playing. Using a scale definition, Warhammer becomes a purely tactical game as well because it is modelling a single battle and not a theater. I do not think that what you are proposing is similar in any real fashion to what was being proposed before. You are making sense, not semantic arguements about splitting hairs.
I entirely agree. Confusing as it may seem the discussion, as far as I could tell, was not about strategy and tactics (although we missused the terms often enough to confuse anybody. ) It was about whether there was any merit in trying to carry out a plan in Battlelore.

At least that's how it started.............
Who said that????

1) The futility (stupidity) of making long term plans was mentioned. Also, the importance of doing the best next thing (in a system intrinsecally devoid of enough predictability to allow for coherent, reasonable planning): defining long term goals, as well as the tactical pursuit of those goals.
2) No one said it was a turn by turn "card maximization game". Nothing further from the truth. If you "think" it was implied, stop thinking.
3) There's a difference between the two concepts, even if some people choose to disregard it, or are incapable of comprehending it.
4) Defining strategic objectives is not the same as planning. Once again, the entropy within the game system makes planning an impossibility. But people do define strategic objectives, and they pursue them (take the hill, control the flank, destroy the units). And it's not the same thing. That is not planning. Tht is defining objectives.
5) Planning in BL is useless. Defining strategic objectives is smart.
6) BL is tactic. Deal with it. Don´t go changing the meaning of words because you don't like or know what they mean.
7) It's a semantics problem only if you choose to ignore the common meaning of the words.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nicholas
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I mostly agree with the gist of what you are saying - although not the tone. However, saying that planning in BL is useless is too extreme. You can plan ahead and then see if the cards you are dealt during the game allow you to carry out that plan, adjusting accordingly as opportunities do (or don't) present themselves. If your plan was effective and you were able to carry it out through the random draw of the cards - it wasn't useless at all, it won you the game.


Quote:
Planning in BL is useless. Defining strategic objectives is smart.
Quote:
BL is tactic. Deal with it. Don´t go changing the meaning of words because you don't like or know what they mean.
shake
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   |