All the talk of rts games has got me thinking again and I''m wondering if people would play a pure strategy game. Your the commander of an army. You decied composition, formations, reserves, recived intellegance reports, manange logisics and plan an attack. When the actual battle occurs you have no control of the realtime battle that insues, you recivied updates and can watch things unfold, perhaps issue additonal orders, such reinforce thise place, aid this company, advance on this location. But that would be it. The game would be all about strategy and not tactics since the battles would be for the most part won or lost before they began. ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document

I''ve been playing Disgaea:Hour Of Darkness lately which is a lot like Final Fantasy tactics in that it has only one gameplay element and it goes psychotic with it. I think it works well, some people might not.

As for a Macromanagement RTS, as opposed to a Micromanagement RTS, that might be a significant change from the generally accepted style of gameplay. I''d be interested to see such a thing.

Sounds like Romance of the three kingdoms they were(still are) great games but i have to say later on they did put a bit of control over battles in and added a few features that made it more fun, but it was almost pure statagy, any way im blabing on now

Setting up a strategy and just watching is almost impossible as there are countless combonations of tactics to use. Close Combat is Real time but it''s also mainly just strategic. Nothing like warcraft or any other game like that. The units advance carefully. It''s also slow paced. For the most part you only issue commands at the beginning and then after each one completes it''s task.

Take Rainbow 6 when it first came out. I know it''s not real strategy but it does have a static game plan. You''d set up a route for all teammates to follow. But what happens if one team dies. You would have to break away from the group and complete their task or else something drastic would happen. especially if you were hoping the two teams would flank the enemy. They wouldn''t adapt if something went wrong. Or they wouldn''t adapt if something changed or react only to a key circumstance.

That sounds like a realistic problem to me. After all if you strategy hinges on your mobile division looping around behind the enemy while your infantry fight them head on. Then your going to be in alot of trouble if the mobile division is ambushed and cut down. Depending on how crucial they where to your strategy the lose of the mobile division could cost you the entire battle.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

if it's fun and interesting...sure

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Kierkegaard reminds us that belief
has nothing to do with how or why.
Belief is beyond reason.

I believe because it is absurd."


[edited by - _wintermute on September 30, 2003 9:18:07 AM]

There is a game called Dominions (http://www.illwinter.com/dominions.html) which features this. Try the demo and decide if you think it''s fun.

Some people like it, others don''t.

JSwing

Heck yeah, some of the best games are "pure strategy". Settlers, Go, chess, etc.

I believe people play chess, yes.


-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

I don''t think chess is a good example because board games are fundemtly diffrent from computer games, and number of people who play chess on the computer I''m sure is far smaller then the number who play on a chess board.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document