Wargame question: Which do you prefer, tactical or strategic?

[Razgovory]

I could have started this in the games forum, but I didn't want to.  It smells in there.  For the purpose of the this poll tactical is commanding individuals to companies.  For Strategic it's regiments on up.  Battalions can go either way.  I don't know much about sea or air combat, so do whatever you feel for those.  For the purposes of this poll most RTS probably should be considered tactical since you don't actually command a lot of soldiers.  Though RTS games like EU3 and the like should probably be considered Strategic.  So you'll have to make your own judgement on some of these.

Examples:
Combat Mission series, tactical turn based.
Starcraft series, tactical real time

War in the Pacific, Strategic turn based
Hearts of Iron 3, Strategic real time.

Some don't fit exactly, one my favorites is a game called Sid Meier's Gettysburg! which I consider tactical despite the smallest unit used is a regiment.  So you'll have to decide for yourself on some.  All my examples are PC games, but that's simply because I don't play a lot of board games, of course board games still count.

[Slargos]

I would argue that any game where the primary component is the tactical disposition of resources with limited or no focus on production is a game of tactics rather than strategy regardless of whether the resource is a platoon or a division.

Panzer General is a tactical game, so is Chess, Go and Diplomacy.

A game where the primary component is the strategic allocation of resources and production and where the tactical is secondary or nonexistant would obviously be a strategy game.

Europa Universalis, World in Flames, Risk.

As for the thread question: Yes, no, maybe, both.

[LaCroix]

i don't think i'd put diplomacy under tactical

starcraft can be strategical or tactical, depending on the map. bull run or gettysburg would fall under the latter, while acw3 fits the former. a map like civil war: campaign virginia, which runs similar to a total war game, could fit both depending on which mode is currently active

to answer the question, it depends

[The Brain]

I can't choose.

[Slargos]

i don't think i'd put diplomacy under tactical

starcraft can be strategical or tactical, depending on the map. bull run or gettysburg would fall under the latter, while acw3 fits the former. a map like civil war: campaign virginia, which runs similar to a total war game, could fit both depending on which mode is currently active

to answer the question, it depends

Diplomacy is iffy, granted, since while the core component of the game is the tactical dispotition of resources it also heavily features deception and cooperation in order to achieve your goals. I would lean on the side of considering these tools tactical in nature aswell.

IMO, the nature of a game is determined not by the scope, but of the tools involved.

[11B4V]

No love for Operational level????

I prefer tacical with the choices you gave. I prefer Operational, tactical, then strat.

[CountDeMoney]

No love for Operational level????

That's the best type!

prefer tacical with the choices you gave. I prefer Operational, tactical, then strat.

Ditto.  I miss making Germans scream with flamethrowers in the Close Combat series. 

[Admiral Yi]

Operational, strategic, then tactical.

[Siege]

How many close combat games are out there?
Five, right?
Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy was the last one...

[Razgovory]

I always considered operational level strategic.

[Tamas]

Operational, strategic, then tactical.

this

[Ideologue]

I guess operational, then strategic.  I don't especially like tactical games, as I prefer to define objectives and allocate enough resources to achieve them, as opposed to being given the resources some game designer or history said was mine.  Although to be honest I haven't played any wargame in a while.

[Martim Silva]

Definitely strategic.

I am very much attracted to the aspect of actually controlling a nation, so I like to get to control everything, in particular politics and economics. I love to determine production lines and the conquest/allocation of resources.

Because, let's face it, THAT is where wars are won or lost. The battlefields are just an afterthought.

I am especially attracted to games where I just tell my generals to go places and then get the reports on how they fared (it also helps when dueling with an AI, as it negates my human tactical advantage vs. a program).

If that's not possible, I prefer Operational. Controlling Army Groups or armies to the seizure of important cities and regions that lead to the defeat of the enemy. Very good.

Least satisfying are tactical games. I do play them, but I am less interested in the outcome of the storming of a village hut by sgt. Z's squad, or if sgt. T's tank will manage to hit that tank down the road.

(Combat Mission 2 games are very good, but I find them to become annoying. Especially whem my entire PAK-front spends several turns firing like mad to barely scratch the painting of the advancing German armour. And then get blown to bits. FRUSTRATION!)

[Josephus]

Generally speaking strategic. But I did like the Combat Mission series.

[Solmyr]

Strategic. I prefer games like EU and Civ to FPSs and RTSs.