What qualities should a good SRPG or tactics RPG have? I personally dislike the common trend in the genre to prioritize micro-managing your units to ensure optimal xp distribution over coming up with a sound strategy to win the overall battle. That, coupled with the randomization of level ups present in the Fire Emblem series specifically can create a frustrating experience, in my opinion, but im aware that maybe thats what makes the genre compelling. Should a SRPG strive to be more immutable, punish your mistakes with permanent character deaths, and restrict xp gain by preventing you from replaying missions or is an SRPG better when it blurs the line between Tactics Ogre and Dragon Quest by being more free to let you fight monsters in the overworld and progress at your leisure like Albert Odyssey or Shining Force? Of the SRPGs that I've played they really seem to cover the spectrum of styles and I find it hard to evaluate which makes for a better game and which just fits into my sensibilities better, as a lover of classic Dragon Quest style RPGs. I'm interested in not just your opinion but also what you consider a defining characteristic of the genre.
>>12543460The ability tο fu- I mean give your sister your "sacred stones"
>>12543460>What qualities should a good SRPG or tactics RPG have?Different qualities
>>12543460The protag should be able to marry his female units.
>>12543460I honestly think thr best srpg is the non retro Devil Survivor which I'd more about proper strategy and having the right tools than gridning, but that's smt is general
Of the SRPGs I've played, I think Langrisser probably is the best strategy game, I just wish the first game made more sense to play. Maybe I should try a remake.I did really like how each character has their own little army of grunts with them.Fire Emblem is flawed, as you said.Final Fantasy Tactics might as well be a glorified turn based JRPG, there's hardly any room for strategy with hiw the enemies are constantly randomized and you have to enter each map completely blind.Super Robot Wars is my personal favorite style, but not something that really warrants a whole lot of strategy unless you use the bad units. I just enjoy being able to use my favorites, and the length of maps. I also like that rather than permadeath, losing units just costs you money based on how strong that unit was, actually now that I think about it, I think permadeath is probably the biggest issue with most games in the genre if you don't get suitable replacements for those you lost, it ends up leading to an eventual softlock cause you'll have to rely on worse unit to clear harder maps until eventually you have nothing, and I guess you could say maybe that's the point of SRPGs, but I feel like the potential of getting softlocked and having to replay a 30+ hour long game is just bad design.
>>12543578>I think Langrisser probably is the best strategy gameWhen I played Langrisser I played with only 2 generals and let all the others just die. Its actually shockingly easy to roll through all the scenarios with very little. Fire Emblem is similar in that you can do it all with a couple guys. Thats an interesting feature thats worth thinking about and its something Shining Force differed in was the way two units fought. In Fire Emblem if a unit declares an attack on you its the same as you declaring an attack on them, more or less. Because of this you have to make a decision on if you want to maybe kill a unit this turn or move a guy to an advantageous position and let the computer decide if they want to kill themselves. In Shining Force you only do damage if you attack, if you get attacked you dont retaliate in the battle screen. Because of that you cant just sit you level 20 guy in the choke point and mow down the horde you have to actually move your guys and engage that way. Like I said before theres a lot of variety in these games and I cant really identify which system is better and which is worse.
>>12543604>Because of that you cant just sit you level 20 guy in the choke point and mow down the horde you have to actually move your guys and engage that way.I only ever played Shining Force 2, but there really isn’t that much more strategy involved. 99% of the time, the most effective strategy is tip toeing forward and letting the enemy units attack your strongest guy one by one, then have all your units hang up on the one enemy who moved closer to attack your frontmost guy. Also, no permadeath, so it’s no big deal if someone does end up falling battle.
>>12543460i really don't think there are any hard and fast rules of the genre besides the basic idea of you moving a variety of dudes across a map with obstacles to fight other dudes. that basic concept is what i like the most about srpgs anyway. and i like the micromanaging aspect personally. mostly for the equipment side of things.
>>12543460Simple. Delete the "RPG" part and make it all about strategy and tactics.
>>12543460Mission variety that isn't KILL THE DUDES. Look to Vandal Hearts, in these game you have to kill the dudes, win in a certain turn limit, prevent targets from reaching certain points, move past exploding or dangerous terrain, that can result in instant death, you can use traps and chokes points and push blocks to impede the enemy. In missions where you need to escape you can fight and win if you're clever enough. The game is always moving forward and always interesting. And it is the best one.
>>12543460Not retro but the best SRPG I've ever played is Fell Seal Arbiter's Mark, it does everything right gameplay wise and even added missing bells and whistles like monster recruitment down the line.
>>12543705>Delete the "RPG" part and make it all about strategy and tactics.Someone should invent this new genre
>>12543765It's called chess
>>12543752Came here to talk about Vandal Hearts tooThe game is exceptionally well balanced
>>12544465It's easily my favorite and I wish it wasn't so under appreciated
I think the most important thing in tactical is....simply difficultyWithout difficulty there is no tension ,no meaningfull strategy no meaningfull planning...I don't think a very easy tactical can be a good game,that's why i never liked Sakura Taisen ,the game is super easy, i only played the first tough maybe it get better with the sequel
>>12546251The problem is how you define difficulty. Being at the mercy of RNG is difficult but it's a bitch not a challenge. You want to give the player a fight but you can't go too far in the opposite extreme. This is why stuff like permadeath is so lame. It doesn't challenge you strategically it just makes you reset the stage
>>12546535A good strategy/tactics game is just a puzzle game.Tacking on RNG, RPG elements, and other garbage only serves to dilute this and make the game worse.We've already seen what you can do if you just play it straight and make it puzzles with solutions. Players have shown that they prefer not to have to think, and instead want VNs with a glorified Press X To Win simulator bolted on pretending to be the gameplay.
>>12546554>A good strategy/tactics game is just a puzzle game.I dont want every srpg to be like the advance wars campaign. Starting a mission and losing 2 turns in because you didnt move your tank to the correct tile on the map the previous turn gets boring quick. Famicom Wars originally was a great concept. I love the freedom to tackle a scenario the way you want and depending on the map and the buildings available you can play it over and over. You can make a tactics game with challenge without it being a puzzle game and I disagree with the previous poster permadeath can be exciting.
>>12546554>>12546678One single answer """strategy""" suck balls
