Logo
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Mar 31, 2020 3:48 pm



Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Best size for a tactical game? 

What game size?
Smaller games (750 - 1999) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Bigger games (2000 - 3000) 84%  84%  [ 16 ]
None of the above (Give your reason) 16%  16%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 19

Best size for a tactical game? 
Author Message
Black Guard
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:40 am
Posts: 292
Location: A cold and dark place! (Norway)
Hey guys!


So lately me and my friends are having some dissutions about what size of game that gives the most tactical games.

We normally play around 1500 points, and for me that is starting to get a bit boring, mostly becouse off the eternal "rock - paper - scissor" matches i feel we are playing.


The arguments i hear for the smaller games are: that we have more room on the table and that the we have to think more about what units you want to use.

For the bigger games, i usually argue that i like to play more balanced armies, and if i meet a deathstar or a gunline, i can use combination of several units to beat him.


So what kind of games do you think are more tactical and challenging?


What games that are more fun can be a topic for another time.

_________________
Jaith wrote:
"Why 10% more expensive?"

Mighty Beardtrix wrote:
"Because GW once said:"

"All your cash are belongs to us!"


Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:21 pm
Profile
Generalissimo
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Posts: 3721
Location: Baltimore
Post 
I think that the answer is, to some extent, both:

Larger games allow for more diverse armies with the ability to 'stack' more. Dealing with a wider range of combinations that your opponent could throw at you, as well as having to manage a more complex set of combinations within your own army, requires more tactics.

That said, smaller games force you to be more careful with your units and to make every point count. A single warrior killed in a 3k game? Who cares. At 500 points? It's a much bigger impact. Similarly, in a larger game you can cover all of your bases and take a balanced army: taking at least one magic and combat hero for example. In smaller games, however, you need to make a strategic choice: at 500 points you can probably afford one combat hero or a sorceress - and then you have to manage the consequences of whichever choice you make.

So, in conclusion: larger armies require more strategy to deal with building and managing a more complex army yourself, as well as responding to your opponent's more complex army, but smaller armies require more strategy to deal with greater potential imbalances and increased value of individual models.


In terms of fun. I find games at around 2,000 to 2,500 the most enjoyable. I have enough points that I can make a solid force with everything I want to include, at a squeeze, which requires me to make specific choices. At 3k+ it starts to feel a bit like I am throwing in units for the sake of it, whereas at 1.5k or less it starts to feel like I can't include the size or types of unit and heroes that I want and become too restricted in terms of choice. 2k to 2.5k also lasts around 2 to 3 hours, which is a good length of time for a game. 1k can feel like it is over before it has begun and 3k can feel like you're playing for hours.

_________________
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman


Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:21 pm
Profile
Executioner
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:05 am
Posts: 157
Location: Grand Forks North Dakota
Post 
I like playing at least 2500 pts any less and I always leave out a unit or two that I would really like to play. Tactically I think that each pts size battle offers it's own challenges so it is fun to change it up but for me I prefer 2500+

_________________
handsome jack


Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:24 am
Profile
Scourge
Scourge
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:05 am
Posts: 656
Location: A torture dungeon in Suffolk
Post 
I think bigger games allow are tactically better because luck plays less of a factor in it, law of averages says that a larger sample will tend more towards the average than a smaller one, it also allows gives you options whilst not giving you such free-reign that you can put in everything, 2.5K is best I think because it gives me options whilst still having enough constraints to force you to make hard decisions on what you can and can't take. Larger games also give you more to work with allowing more complex and multi-faceted strategies.

That being said, I think it is less larger games than games in the middle range, I think 0.5-1.5 is small, 2-3 is medium and 3.5+ is large, I think 2.5 is best because it sits right in the middle of these where you have choice and enough units to work with, yet are still constrained and have to conserve, much bigger and there too few constraints, much smaller and there are too majny constraints, but there is only a small amount in it, I don't think any points value is drastically more tactical than others and each offers its own challenges.

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Voro!!!

All things perish, this is the law of existence, accept your suffering and your mortality, only by using this truth, can you transcend it.


Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:46 am
Profile
Slave on the Altar

Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 4:17 am
Posts: 3
Post 
The best is at least a two part campaign that puts you in an underdog scenario and an overdog scenario and possible a 'balanced' scenario.

There are good ideas in the back of the BRB and the non-outdated General's Compendium have a lot of ideas that can be ported into 8th edition rules with relative ease.

Essentially changing the basics of the game will add a lot more tactics and on the fly thinking and deploying. Pretty much anything that makes the rules different than either player are used to will force tactical and strategical thinking. Some points values make for easier or harder tactical decisions.


Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:26 am
Profile
Executioner
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:57 am
Posts: 1956
Location: Hell
Post 
Malus pretty much has it right.

Big games tends to be more of a no brainer as to what you should take, because as stated, you could easily take a combat lord AND a Lv4 mage without sinking so many points into characters. It then comes down to whether you placed them at the right place at the right time. At 2500pts, one would usually go combat lord and Lv2, or Lv4 and a support combat character, then you would need to find a way to plug in that weaker gap. That alone, already requires more tactics.

You're also given less constraint on the units you can take, A balanced list pretty much consists of one of every unit entry, which you can comfortably achieve in bigger games. Or you could take multiples of one unit and begin to fine tune your army to a more specific tactic, which is what you do in smaller games.

Big games to me, are more for fun, the board is only so big, it starts to make some tactics not so viable. Like Dark Riders and Shades trying to outflank an enemy unit and whittle them down with RxBs.

Medium sized games (2500pts) as Malus said, constraints you enough to make you weigh up some decisions and steers you to tune your list to a more tactical role. It essentially gives you enough points to make a list that excels at 2 of the 3 main phases, and gives enough space for units to move around on.

_________________
What's mine is mine, What's yours is mine.
Now that we understand each other, lets get down to business.

Jacks -Shade
- WS 5 - - S 3 - - T 2 - - D 6 - - I 5 -

Equipment
Short Sword, MC Long Sword*, Dagger, RxB & RHB [20/10] MC Shade Cloak, 4 Throwing Daggers, 3x Healing Vials, 451C, [3]Dark Venom, [4]Unseen Chains, Food, Dark Steed- Spike

Skills
Basic Stealth, Awareness, TWF, Suithenlu Khythan, Ride

Magic Item
Eye of the Jabberwock

*Magical properties possibly imbued


Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:23 am
Profile
Scourge
Scourge
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:05 am
Posts: 656
Location: A torture dungeon in Suffolk
Post 
Meteor wrote:
Malus pretty much has it right.
:shock: I do? I mean, I do! :D

_________________
Veni, Vidi, Voro!!!

All things perish, this is the law of existence, accept your suffering and your mortality, only by using this truth, can you transcend it.


Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:20 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software