Anon02/03/26, 03:48No.2332902
I think tactics games are superior to strategy games even though I prefer strategy games.
It's easier to estimate how long games will take when both players have limited assets, and the games are usually shorter which I think would make multiplayer more appealing. Players naturally have more focus at the beginning of the match than they do at the end, tactics games match this by starting out very complex and becoming simpler as both sides take casualties. This is in comparison to a strategy game which increases in scope and required cognitive load as the game progresses. Limited assets mean that the focus is less on multitasking and more on tactics. They also fully emphasize combat over base building or resource gathering. I admit resource gathering and the like does actually provide another dimension to gameplay and is one of the reasons I prefer strategy games like CnC, however, so this reason isn't objective. I also think it would be easier to understand what you did wrong in the event of a loss, and it would be easier to act on that information since you're given a menu to plan your army composition ahead of time instead of having to put it into practice in real time while doing everything else demanded of you by an RTS game. On that note, no unit production also means no build orders, idle production buildings/workers or a lot of the things that non-RTS players dislike about the genre (or struggle with because they don't know the theory of it).
Most tactics games (war on the sea, sea power, nebulous, etc) are hamstrung by being autism simulators. I think that a well made but relatively simple tactics game could be highly successful.