>I put the archers behind the spearmen, wait for the melee then charge their backs with cavThis is how the average strategy gamer thinks of strategy. A smoothbrained subhuman can come up with the above. *Executing* it is the hard part of battle.The real challenge in battle stems from chaos, and dealing with that chaos is what separates good commanders from the bad.The TW games and other strategy games you can micro each of your units from a bird's eye view and tell them exactly where to go, and they'll 100% follow your orders instantly.It's like God has the command of one side of the battle. Of course you'd win every time.Real battles are full of misinformations, misjudgement about enemy size/position and even own position and size. Units also do not respond to orders instantaneously or follow them correctly most fo the time. Even a good strategist like Napoleon, during Waterloo, had 1/3 of his army off-map chasing after some phantom enemy, had his elite cavalry charge into square without his consent, only for that phantom enemy to appear on his flank securing his defeat. This would never happen to the player in an average strategy game.Real battles are chaotic and it takes actual high IQ and most importantly, LUCK to win. Are there any games that do this? pic rel is a board game that does this quite well
>I put the archers behind the spearmen>so enemy archers now can kite my spearmens sine they have range advantageYou just bad but still thinking that you at least average.
>>1735531It's inspired by this post>>1734299Whether you put archers behind or in front is irrelevant. You have been TW-brained. The point of the thread is that dealing with CHAOS is what makes or breaks a commander, not what he would do if he was God and can control his units like in TW
>>1735520>I put the archers behind the spearmen, wait for the melee then charge their backs with cavYou're describing tactics, not strategy.>Even a good strategist like Napoleon, during Waterloo, had 1/3 of his army off-map chasing after some phantom enemyOperational tactics, not strategy:^)The only games that I can think that have a little bit of what you're talking about are Command Ops 2 and Grand Tactician: The Civil War (1861-1865), but micromanaging is still usually the most efficient way to play. There are other games with order delays too.
Are there any games that make op less of a massive faggot?
>>1735520>I put the archers behind the spearmenAlmost never happened because most commanders feared to shoot their own troops later in the battle.
luck isn't a fun gameplay mechanic when you're dealing with 50 other variables
>>1735568field of glory gets this right and doesn't let your archers shoot over your own troops. among other things, like not being able to pull back units in combat or turn them around easily in formation, and less disciplined troops having a chance to pursue retreating units into potentially disadvantageous positions
>>1735520Try Flashpoint Campaigns - you can only issue orders in limited capacity, units need to be withing command radius and they take time to execute said orders. Also issuing too many commands will make it easy for the enemy to triangulate your position and drop arty on your head. You need to make a plan and order you units to move, take positions and defend during the deployment phase, once you hit play, it's mostly damage control.Other games where you need to make educated guesses and plans fall flat... Graviteam Tactics and Close Combat. If you're looking for something not from the modern era, I honestly don't know, maybe Scourge of War series?
>>1735704Thanks anon! I'll check these out>>1735649Luck is really fun
>>1735538>Whether you put archers behind or in front is irrelevantIt's very revalent. It's diffrence between be bad and be good.>You have been TW-brainedDid TW rape you? Put long-range units in places where they can hit shorter range enemies is common in lot of games.>The point of the thread is that dealing with CHAOSYou no need to dealing with it if you have good recon. And if you didn't have recon you just bad.
>>1735520This is only in total war games or arcade games. This is not find in proper wargames.
>>1735712>You no need to dealing with it if you have good recon. And if you didn't have recon you just bad.Tell that to every commander in history. You have incomplete info of everything, and your orders will not be executed when and how you want. Even fighting the battle or not is sometimes outside of your controlPompey's loss at Pharsalus, for example.He was forced into a battle by his subordinates, when he didn't need to. Games don't portray this.He faceplanted his cav into spearmen. You think if he was a TW player he'd let that happen? No, he'd zoom-in, mouse over the enemy troops, see that they're armed with pilum, select his cav and right click somewhere else.He then let his entire line get rolled up without being able to do anything to stop it. In TW he could've neatly reformed, maybe into a semi-square, or meticulously lenthened his frontline to match that of Caesar's.In real life though, all these things happened and led to his defeat. Players should be able to experience these and experience them often.
>>1735728>Tell that to every commander in history.With easy. Just right after moment where game let me set scripts for behavior patterns.You should look at Dominion, how it's work.
>>1735712NTA, but dismissing everything as "skill issue" doesn't make you sound like a good player, more like a retard. More so, considering Total War has brain-dead AI and the so called "recon" is putting an observation tower somewhere so that you can see exactly what units an enemy army has and how many.
>>1735744Did you have raped by total wars too?There's lot of games where player can use advantage in range if enemy let him do this. In pvp matches too.And this is literally skill issue.
>>1735752I don't think you understand what this thread's about. Perhaps brush up on your English and re-read the first few sentences of the OP
>>1735766All sane that OP says is "bruh TW is bad" and "puttin archers behind spears is good".All the rest is literally "NOOO YOU CAN'T HAVE RECON AND THIS IS NOT SKILL ISSUE".You have the same takes btw.Prove me wrong.
>>1735752The only skill issue here is your command of English.
>>1735787I accepted your concession.
>>1735649it is when you can use the 50 other variables to mitigate the effects bad luck or take advantage of good luck
>>1735520All of your post is tactics, not strategy.
>>1735728So what you're saying is that Pompey fag was even worse commander than average TW player? Why do we even remember him if that's the case.
>>1735952i don't remember him, i thought he was a volcano
>>1735520t. dont-know-what-chaos-theory-is
>>1735520I've read that ancient (and even modern, lmao) games are more like playing card game. You have to build your card deck (drill tactics) first, then you apply it appropriately (order this manuver or that manuver) when the battle comes. But you almost have no control on what the cards (troops) actually do in real time.
>>1735520That doesn't work in multi-player
>>1735649You have to gamble and deal with noise
>>1735952I'm saying every commander, even the greatest, face challenges that TW players don't face, and it's those challenges that decide battles, not basic TW tactics, because anyone can figure those out.
>>1735520Graviteam, Flashpoint Campaigns, Sengoku Jidai/FoGII (exact mechanic you're looking for regarding cavalry fucking around off-map when you need it most).
>>1737181>Sengoku Jidai/FoGIII've played Pike and Shot and it was overall pretty good. I'm guessing these two are along the same vein?
>>1735520>Thinking only of the battlefield.You lack strategic vision."Wars are not won on the field of combat. Battles are, but those are only ever part of the story. To win a war you need to break the enemy's resolve, to force him to accept defeat. Otherwise the war will never end. Too many conflicts persist because battles are won but the hearts and minds of the people are not. Winning involves every level of society, from the generals and politicians to the shop girls and street cleaners. The infantryman with his rifle may be the blunt weapon used to win this fight, but he is neither the instigator nor the concluder." - Anastasius Focht
>>1738338Based, dare I say Blake pilled even.
>>1738338The opinions of shop girls and street cleaners only matter in dysfunctional "democratic" societies.
>>1738489Nta but lowkey gay and wrong.Even autocratic regimes get toppled if the masses are in opposition to the rulers and their actions.
>>1735520This is why big brains play logistics games.
>>1738504>the massesmarxist detected. They only get toppled if some in the upper echelons are in opposition to the rulers. They then rile the lower echelons up which then poses a challenge to the regimeAlso autocratic regimes aren't the only ones that ignore the opinions of shop girls. A more selective democracy with limited and weighted votes does as well,
>>1738545>Also autocratic regimes aren't the only ones that ignore the opinions of shop girls. A more selective democracy with limited and weighted votes does as wellAbsolute monarchies and feudalism too, although one could argue that absolute monarchies are autocratic
>>1738338A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness.
>>1735520Ignore all the retarded fuckwits blabbering on, they are smooth brained trailer trash who lack basic comprehension skills.Yes, of course you are correct. Units obeying instantly and doing exactly as ordered. Bullshit. God like view of the situation. Bullshit. Most games dont have sufficient fog of war that simulates the imperfect information available. Most games do not incorporate sufficient mechanisms for adding chaos inflicted by poorly trained troops, variable morale and combat strength, misunderstood orders, the personalities of Commanders pursuing ego driven incentives, or their mere incompetence. History is full of such examples.Probably two reasons why no game comes up to the mark. Firstly they cater to the mass of lowits who would spit the dummy if they didn't win a glorious victory every time. Second its probably too hard to code. Additionally there's the issue of current AIs being able to cope with a fuckton of other variables if the game is played as single player, they struggle to cope with even now, although that could be solved by making games easier to play online against other humans with an efficient matchmaking system that filters out the rage quitters, the unreliable, the retards, and the babies.
>>1741529You sound unreasonably mad. Did you not get any touchings last night..
>>1741529what midwits like you and op never seem able to understand is that everyone agrees with you by default that these games are not realistic and that something like you or op are describing is more realistic.the problem is either the lack of such games or such games being buggy and undercooked. but you keep working yourself into a froth trying to explain how your way is the most realistic while everyone just looks at your meltdown in confusion and disgust
>>1738883And then you kill them?
>>1735538I will double your autism and say that tactical decisions like this actually do influence the command of a battlefield in a very real way. Archers up front implies a skirmisher role. They will harass the enemy and provide a screen for the bulk of the spearmen to approach and prepare to meet the enemy bulk without issues. They do not need direct orders from me for when to retreat they will naturally keep away and disperse when the enemy gets closer. Their weapons are light and do not hinder movement naturally they will be more fluid and less static. My most important trained troops are not the archers but the infantry block, like Greek Hoplites. Skirmishers being dumb can be dangerous but misleading my block can spell disaster. Sure there are factors in real life that could mean I can't control them but in general I focus on the bulk of my attention on them and not the archers.Archers in the back or mixed implies I expect they to fire upon the enemy bulk while it is engaged with the bulk of my troops. In this case I will have to spend more of my limited attention ensuring the archers are in position and that the front doesn't break and they get overran or flanked, and that the archer fire is actually effective. Because of this I am more likely to put a premium on archer equipment and give them larger longbows instead of shortbows. These are specialized trained units above the common spearmen stock who make up the bulk of the front in direct contrast to the tactics employed by the Gayreeks and I will expect them to have a larger impact on the battle. Shortbow skirmishers cannot pierce heavy armor but these archers can. If these units are to become disorganized I do not want them on the front because they are a more important part of my plan and if I can't command them at all I do not want whoever is to have any ideas of moving them up. Naturally their weapons would dissuade them from doing that because they are bulkier and take longer to reload.
>>1743709You are a fucking idiot who would get men needlessly killed in a irl situation
>>1744291do you believe yourself to be a capable leader of men, anon? would you preserve the lives of your archers in a irl situation?
>>1735520>I set up a society and infrastructure that lets me recruit, fund and train a regular army.>I institute methods and drills of training that make for regular engagement exercises,> as well as tactical plans, so that neither my pikemen, horsemen and archers break and lose cohesion easily in battle, nor do they have trouble executing a more step by step large scale maneuvers.That's what I would want from a strategy game.While an absolute retard of a General still can lead my well-funded and trained army to slaughter, they would excell under a brilliant, or even above average one.But it should be an ongoing cost and strain instead of "research a superior and better trained unit". It should also necessitate both keeping an "experienced" cadre of veteran soldiers alive, and/or importing veterans from over the border which would necessitate researching their language, and paying to acquire them.
>>1735728Another fun example is the charge of the light brigade
>>1735520Most strategy games have fog of war and so does total war
>>1735649Also luck is fairly common mechanic in tactics games, the fuck is this crackhead OP on about?
>>1741529You realism fags should never ever make a video gameThere is a reason why you don't throw a dice whenever you move a piece in chess to see if you roll right for it to move or not, because it would be dogshit mechanic.>poorly trained troops >variable moralethese things are being represented in video games already>Commanders pursuing ego driven incentivesthat's politics not strategy
>>1735568I can’t recall the wiki title but there was an incident of friendly fire in the 100 year in a French army and they immediately started charging their own crossbows out of vengeance.
>>1735520>Are there any games that do this?Slytherine games are probably the closest we'll get but they still have their limitations. If they had a good campaign mode with limited information combined with the need to send out scouts and screen your troops it'd be kino.Also, Mount and Blade unironically gives me a more immersive feeling of being a commander than any TW game, if only because your field of view is so limited. CK3 with the obfusckate mod plus crusader blade (if they ever fucking update it) could lead to some good grand strategy with limited info morphing into battles where your ability to command and control is limited by your ability to ride around and personally observe things unfolding.
I recommend Mount and Blade, Ultimate General: AR and Scourge of War: Waterloo KS mod. Mount and Blade gives you the in field commander experience. Ultimate General: AR has limited FOW and outdated information. Scourge of War has independent commanders down to the brigade level, where you send couriers for orders at the highest difficulty setting. Of course, you can set your camera to be "in the saddle". The battles in Scourge of War are sorta just give the give the orders and hope for the best.
